Fishing Policies and Island Community Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fisheries have a long history of being the economic backbone of the coastal and island \ncommunities that dot the coastline of Newfoundland and Labrador. The policies and \nmanagement structure that guide resource use in the province have had, and will continue to \nhave, an impact on those communities. The Fishing Policies and Island Community \nDevelopment project set out to examine these impacts in two areas (Anchor Point and Fogo and \nChange Islands) and also to explore how these communities have responded to and even \ninfluenced these policies, management structures and impacts. Brief comparisons are also made \nto findings from a related research project in three island fishing communities in Maine. \nThe study drew from bodies of literature in Archipelagic Island Studies and Comanagement. \nThe research involved secondary data and document review as well as 28 \ninterviews conducted with government and community representatives in 2012. A series of \nknowledge mobilization activities have also been undertaken, including a project web page, \npresentations and feedback on initial results obtained at a fall 2012 symposium dedicated to \nfisheries and community research on the west coast of Newfoundland, and a forum scheduled for \nFogo Island and Change Islands in May 2014. \nThe collapse of the groundfishery in the 1990’s, coupled with the rise of snow crab and \nshrimp fisheries, has influenced how communities respond to changes in the fishery. Policies of \nimportance to communities have included those related to licensing, quotas and other methods of \ncontrolling and limiting catch, rationalization, processing and marketing and recreational/food \nfisheries. The two regions focused upon in this study, Fogo Island/Change Islands and Anchor \nPoint and area, have been active players in influencing how fisheries policies and management \ndecisions and other measures impact their communities. Fogo Island and Change Islands share \nthe presence of the Fogo Island Co-operative, Ltd., for example. The Fogo Island Co-operative \noperates facilities on Fogo Island and has also operated the community-owned fish plant on \nChange Islands. The Co-operative is joined by the more recent development of Shorefast \nFoundation, which plays a role in promoting stewardship, experimentation with alternative gear \ntypes, and development of new high value markets for island seafood products, particularly cod. \nAnchor Point shrimp harvesters, in addition to the rest of the 4R fleet, have participated in a \nvoluntary late start to their fishery, delaying the opening of their season to May 1st from April 1st. \nEntering new fisheries, vessel upgrades and travelling for employment in other sectors have been \nadditional strategies employed. Community quotas were also suggested in both regions. We \nfound that these communities, while threatened by changes in the fishery and Newfoundland \neconomy more broadly, have innovative ways of responding to changes in two key ways: 1) \nworking within the existing management structure (as the 4R harvesters did) to influence local \napplications of fisheries policy, and 2) creating news way to buy, sell, and market their catch (as \nthe Fogo Island Co-operative and Shorefast Foundation have done). Local governments and \ncommunity organizations have also lobbied for policy change but the impacts of these efforts are \nless evident in a system that remains largely driven by centralized decision-makers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".