Bridging Jurisdictional Divides: Collective Action Through a Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ontario, eight Great Lakes states, U.S. tribes, federal agencies in Canada and the United States, and the binational Great Lakes Fishery Commission all have a role in Great Lakes fishery management, with the non-federal governments retaining primary management authority. This dissertation is about how and why independent (yet interdependent) fishery managers work collectively through A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, a non-binding agreement. This research focuses on what the Joint Strategic Plan means to those who participate in the process and relies primarily on semi-structured interviews and participant observation to address the central questions: Why do fishery managers take collective action in Great Lakes fishery management? What do fishery managers hope to achieve when they participate in the Joint Strategic Plan? ** The data reveal four facets of Great Lakes fishery management that help explain how and why collective action occurs. First, the history of Great Lakes fishery management illustrates that the non-federal governments have a strong sense of jurisdictional independence, which has made them sensitive to usurpation of their authority and thus somewhat reluctant to cooperate with each other. Second, fishery managers are part of an “epistemic community,” a group of like-minded professionals, and the Joint Strategic Plan gently coerces this community into working together and substantially rewards them for doing so. Third, despite long-standing tensions between the federal and non-federal governments, the non-federal members generally trust their federal counterparts and work with them synergistically. Finally, members reject the idea of a binding agreement because it would be inconsistent with Great Lakes fishery governance and because they feel they can achieve their goals through a non-binding agreement. These conclusions are applied to a case study—a dispute over walleye harvest in Lake Erie in 2004—as a way to illustrate how members believe the plan serves their needs even in stressful situations. This dissertation concludes by identifying four overarching themes related to fishery governance through the plan—jurisdictional independence, shared strategies and plans, science, and personal relationships—and discusses how those factors relate to the plan’s durability and replicability.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle