HUMAN-WOLF CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE IN THE PACIFIC RIM NATIONAL PARK RESERVE REGION, NUU-CHAH-NULTH TRADITIONAL TERRITORY, VANCOUVER ISLAND, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protected areas situated at the urban-wilderness interface present unique wildlife conservation opportunities and challenges. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (PRNPR) occupies the traditional lands of nine First Nations and adjoins two tourist communities on the southwest coast of Vancouver Island. This geography presents a complex task of balancing rights of First Nation communities, residents, and park visitors, while upholding the ecological integrity mandate of the Parks Canada Agency. Human-wolf interactions typify these challenges because of re-established wolf populations, increased residential development, and perpetuation of behaviors by residents and visitors that habituate wolves and puts wolves’ survival at risk. The objectives of this research were to: (1) define “conflict” and “coexistence”, and their influencing factors, (2) better understand local residents’ and visitors’ sentiments regarding wolves and their management, (3) characterize ways that PRNPR and partner Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations can weave Nuu-chah-nulth Knowledge and local best practices into conflict-mitigation and long-term coexistence strategies, and (4) identify and present a human-wolf coexistence framework that foster ongoing collaboration and relationship building. These objectives were addressed using a mixed-methods approach involving semi-structured interviews (n=32) and a collaborative workshop. Throughout this dissertation, I share important insights across all these objectives, some of which include: (1) co-produced definitions and parameters of conflict and coexistence (objective 1, 2, and 3), (2) unique findings showing the high level of tolerance and excitement for wolves, but that conflicts are primarily being led by pro-wolf people and groups (objectives 1 and 2), and (3) a co-identified path toward more effective cross-cultural collaboration in state-led efforts around human-wildlife interactions (objectives 3 and 4). Results will inform future efforts on human-wolf coexistence and relationship building among Parks Canada, First Nations, and rights- and stakeholder groups.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".