MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392098608 · doi:10.1002/aqc.4088

Interactions between inland water‐based recreation and freshwater turtles: A review

2024· review· en· W4392098608 on OpenAlexafffund
Albana Berberi, Jessika D. Guay, Grégory Bulté, Steven J. Cooke, Christina M. Davy, Vivian M. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecreationGeographyFisheryEnvironmental scienceWater resource managementEcologyHydrology (agriculture)BiologyGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Outdoor recreation brings countless benefits to humans. Understanding the inevitable human interactions with nature is essential for conserving the outdoors for years to come. Water‐based recreation in freshwater ecosystems is increasing in popularity, but freshwater biodiversity is in global decline. The aim of this review is to explore the interactions between water users and freshwater turtles during inland water‐based recreation. Thirty articles (most based in North America) were found to study human–turtle interactions during water‐based recreation, 29 of which reported water‐based recreational activities posing negative effects on freshwater turtle populations. Negative, direct effect interactions included boat collisions with turtles and accidental hooking of turtles with fishhooks. Negative, indirect effect interactions included human presence near habitats used by turtles and wake action with subsequent shoreline erosion. One article reported a positive interaction between humans and freshwater turtles when installing a non‐disruptive turtle observation deck. Eleven articles discussed conservation measures to mitigate turtle risks during water‐based recreation, but none evaluated their efficacy. Conservation measures included regulating boat types, sizes and access points, protecting habitats used by turtles, designating ‘no wake’ boating zones, restricting fishing permits, installing turtle basking perches, promoting public awareness and outreach and implementing participatory science and stewardship programmes. Future research on human–freshwater turtle interactions during inland water‐based recreation could explore the efficacy of conservation measures, potential interactions outside of regularly studied boating and fishing activities and recreation‐induced turtle habitat alterations. Also, future research could explore the human dimension side of human–turtle interactions, including perceptions and knowledge from water users on the interactions they experience, and their awareness and actions of pro‐environmental behaviours to protect turtles during water‐based recreation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207