Primate conservation: A public issue?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonhuman primates (primates) are one of the most endangered mammalian taxa in the world. In the Global North, primates are considered exotic species and, as such, humans' impact on primate conservation and responsibility to protect primates is often ignored. This view differs from the spectrum of relations and attitudes of humans that live in connection to primates, which can include viewing these animals as culturally/religiously significant, cohabitors of forests, nuisances, or sources of protein. While conservationists argue that primates deserve our protection, the conservation crisis facing primates is rarely framed as a public issue, in contrast to other global crises, such as climate change. However, over half of the world's human population lives within 100 km of primate habitat. Thus, humans and primates share the same environments. We suggest leveraging a holistic approach, such as One Health, that considers the interconnectedness of primates, humans, and their shared environments, through the lens of public anthropology. By approaching primate conservation as an intersectional issue that affects and is affected by humans, researchers and conservationists can identify strategies that simultaneously protect primates and address global inequities that frequently affect people in primate range countries. Reflexive research practices further allow academics to consider the broader impact of their ecological research through means such as publicly accessible dissemination of results, equitable capacity-building of high-quality personnel in primate range countries, and social activism. The use of inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinary concepts and methodology can address the intersectional challenges associated with implementing ethical and sustainable primate conservation measures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".