Humans Sharing Space and Crocodiles Adaptations: A Case Study in Bhitarkonika Wildlife Sanctuary, Kendrapara, Odisha
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The instance between human-crocodile conflict is a very serious issue in the present era. This accident is gradually increased with the progress of human civilization. By the process of human explosion and minimizing the natural resources, human beings appear to a natural habitat area. So, the term comes human-wildlife conflict that refers to the negative interaction between humans and wild animals, leading to adverse impacts such as injury or loss of human lives, crops, livestock and other properties and at the same time equally negative impacts to the wild animals or their habitats. Our study about human crocodile conflict in BhitarKanika Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha. The number of semi-structured interviews with households are 50 which is involved with age, gender, education, perception and attitude of the inhabitants about saltwater crocodiles. Some secondary information collected from govt. office of Odisha, journals related to season wise victim rate, activities of the people when attack with fatal and non-fatal, male-female wise victim rate etc. The study about human crocodile conflict is very significant because it includes an increase in the human population close to crocodile habitants, changing lifestyles and economic aspirations; reduced appreciation of wildlife, land use changes; tourism policies, aquaculture, fishing and wet land habitat fragmentation, loss and degradation (MOEFCC, 2023). The conservation and management strategy of saltwater crocodiles in BhitarKanika Wildlife Sanctuary is very much essential for maintaining the balance of bio-diversity by creating awareness among people, minimizing the use of natural resources, development of alternative livelihood of the local people, setting more bath huts in the sanctuary. These comprehensive management plan reduce the dependency on forest resources and minimize the human crocodile conflict.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".