Reimagining habituation: The case for a reciprocal and contextual understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the frequency and intensity of human–wildlife interactions continue to rise, the process and outcomes of habituation are becoming more important. Commonly defined as ‘…a waning of response to a repeated, neutral stimuli’ or of similar wording, we argue that these conceptualisations of habituation are too simplistic in the context of direct human–wildlife interactions. We argue that much of the habituation literature has been one‐sided (i.e. focused only on the nonhuman) and detriment‐focused, failing to grasp the deep complexities of the process and its implications. We conducted a brief scoping review of the habituation literature to show how the term is being used by whom, and in what context. We sought to explore habituation from a broad disciplinary range and therefore included literature from ethology, behavioural ecology and conservation biology as well as disciplines less represented in mainstream conservation such as multispecies anthropology, political ecology and more‐than‐human geography. Supported by the scoping review, we illustrate that habituation as an outcome of human–wildlife interactions is (1) a nuanced, reciprocal process that is both understood and practised in diverse ways, with potentially negative and positive impacts for both people and wildlife and (2) is shaped by cultural, historical and political–economic contexts. We share four case examples based on our own research that justify and reinforce our arguments for reframing our understanding of habituation. Adopting more reciprocal and contextual conceptualisations of habituation will improve our collective understanding of how it occurs and how to find ways to adapt and coexist. We urge future research to explore these ideas and understandings through different geographical and species contexts and apply additional disciplinary approaches to understanding and managing human–wildlife interactions. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
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 | 0.064 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.143 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".