MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409517333 · doi:10.1177/19400829251333939

Forest Elephants in a Human-Dominated Landscape: Are They Risk-Takers?

2025· article· en· W4409517333 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTropical Conservation Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsGeographyLandscape connectivityEnvironmental resource managementEcologyAgroforestryEnvironmental sciencePopulationBiologyMedicineBiological dispersalEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habitat loss from forest conversion to agriculture threatens tropical biodiversity. Despite documented risk-avoidance behaviors, some species may adopt riskier strategies to gain access to food. Recent conversion of a protected area in southern Cameroon to an agro-industrial plantation coincides with increased sightings of forest elephants near human settlements, which is unusual and suggests a drastic change in their habitat use. This study aims to examine the influence of human activity on forest elephant habitat use and evaluate the effectiveness of two survey methods in documenting elephant and human occurrence. Twenty-one camera traps were deployed along the border between the declassified protected area and the community land, and reconnaissance walks were conducted between camera trap stations. Results from both methods were compared. Elephant occurrence tended to be negatively affected by human activity, and elephants were inactive during peak human activity. However, their presence near human settlements suggests a general risk-taking behavior in habitat use. Moreover, reconnaissance walks proved more effective than camera traps in providing a greater amount of data. This risky proximity to humans points to a complex trade-off between risk and access to food resources, where the nutritional benefits and easy access of crops and secondary forest resources may outweigh the perceived human-mediated risk. At the same time, elephants may adopt strategies to minimize direct interactions with humans. Further habitat fragmentation and human encroachment on wild areas are expected in the near future. As elephant presence near human settlements often lead to increased conflict, continued monitoring of elephant habitat use in human-dominated landscapes using efficient survey methods is crucial to design up-to-date and effective management and conservation strategies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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