“All the Fish of the Post:” Resource Property Rights and Development in a Nineteenth-Century Inshore Fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harold Innis once described the eastern Canadian cod fisheries as inherently divisive and history has tended to bear him out. In the past, the fishery has set fisherman against fisherman, merchant against merchant, merchant against planter and settler against metropolitan government. In the present, it continues to produce conflicts, of provincial against federal government, province against province, multinational against independent producer, midshore against inshore fisherman. The nature of the resource lies at the root of the conflict. As a common-property resource with an unprotected rent, the fishery is theoretically open to all. Historically, the fact that the fishery is an open access resource has resulted in a fear that insecure control of access would result in diminished profits; today concern is expressed over diminished or depleted stocks, lost value added and what economists call 'dissipation of the economic rent'. The Scott Gordon model is the best known modern statement demonstrating that because the fishery is an open access resource, its unregulated exploitation will in theory lead to decreasing returns to capital and labour as a result of excess factor supply. This model, however, inadequately describes the dynamics of the industry in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Atlantic Canada when fish merchants were able to devise means of controlling access of both labour and capital to the resource. Such control amounted to the establishment of'property rights' over the resource which prevented dissipation of the economic rent of the fishery, resulting in a viable industry. Although scholars until recently regarded the Westcountrymen as the major
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".