Territorialization, the Mobilization of Bias and the Collapse of the Northern Cod Stocks
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
From Introduction: "This paper contributes to our understanding of the collapse of the Atlantic Canadian groundfish stocks by linking the dynamics of sovereignty initiatives and shifting property relations associated with a privatization agenda to the spatial organization of science and management, and the dynamics of knowledge production and control. Our analysis focuses on the northern cod stocks and the period between June 1986 and April 1987. We have selected this period because this was the time when the precision and accuracy of DFO estimates of northern cod stock abundance, the largest Atlantic groundfish stock, were first questioned in an organized, public and sustained fashion, and because scientific and state response to this challenge set the stage for a delayed response to indicators of resource degradation in subsequent years. \n \n"This paper builds on Finlayson's (1994) social constructionist analysis of the northern cod collapse as a product of bureaucratically-embedded science and tensions between bureaucratic and scientific rationality, and is informed by evidence of political intervention in DFO groundfish science (Anderson and Steele, 1992; 1997; Hutchings, Haedrich and Walters, 1997). We open with a discussion of the ways processes related to sovereignty claims and developing property relations in the period between 1977 and 1986 interacted with knowledge production and management to create both strong pressures for an expanding Canadian northern cod fishery and a context of scientific uncertainty. This background discussion sets the stage for a microanalysis of the dynamics of the first organized challenge to both this expansionism and to the scientific advice on which it was based. We look at the development of this challenge and at scientific, management and political response to it. Like others, we link the marginalization of the challenge to the culture of DFO science (Finlayson, 1994), but also to the spatial construction of fisheries science and management and to a developing privatization policy agenda. Finally, we suggest that this privatization agenda and the conditions under which it was pursued may have augmented the scientific and bureaucratic barriers to public discussions concerning problems with DFO's science and management for northern cod after 1987.... \n \n"In our analysis of events associated with the onset of the northern cod crisis, we begin with the way various dimensions of territorialization shaped the context for and the form of the initial challenge to northern cod stock assessment science in 1986. The link between this context and our microanalysis of events in 1986-87 is through power relations which acted to 'mobilize bias' against this challenge and its authors. 'Mobilization of bias' is a dimension in the exercise of power within institutions. It refers to institutional features and knowledge frameworks that tend to admit some issues and agents while excluding others. Within science, it entails the processes by which some alternatives may remain invisible because of the ways data are collected and understood (the spatial aspect of territorialization) and because proponents lack the resources to affect decision making processes or because they are excluded from these processes (property relations and decision-making structures within the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the industry)(Bachrach and Baratz, 1970; Schrecker, 1984)."
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».