Fishing Policies and Island Community Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fisheries have a long history of being the economic backbone of the coastal and island communities that dot the coastline of Newfoundland and Labrador. The policies and management structure that guide resource use in the province have had, and will continue to have, an impact on those communities. The Fishing Policies and Island Community Development project set out to examine these impacts in two areas (Anchor Point and Fogo and Change Islands) and also to explore how these communities have responded to and even influenced these policies, management structures and impacts. Brief comparisons are also made to findings from a related research project in three island fishing communities in Maine. The study drew from bodies of literature in Archipelagic Island Studies and Comanagement. The research involved secondary data and document review as well as 28 interviews conducted with government and community representatives in 2012. A series of knowledge mobilization activities have also been undertaken, including a project web page, presentations and feedback on initial results obtained at a fall 2012 symposium dedicated to fisheries and community research on the west coast of Newfoundland, and a forum scheduled for Fogo Island and Change Islands in May 2014. The collapse of the groundfishery in the 1990’s, coupled with the rise of snow crab and shrimp fisheries, has influenced how communities respond to changes in the fishery. Policies of importance to communities have included those related to licensing, quotas and other methods of controlling and limiting catch, rationalization, processing and marketing and recreational/food fisheries. The two regions focused upon in this study, Fogo Island/Change Islands and Anchor Point and area, have been active players in influencing how fisheries policies and management decisions and other measures impact their communities. Fogo Island and Change Islands share the presence of the Fogo Island Co-operative, Ltd., for example. The Fogo Island Co-operative operates facilities on Fogo Island and has also operated the community-owned fish plant on Change Islands. The Co-operative is joined by the more recent development of Shorefast Foundation, which plays a role in promoting stewardship, experimentation with alternative gear types, and development of new high value markets for island seafood products, particularly cod. Anchor Point shrimp harvesters, in addition to the rest of the 4R fleet, have participated in a voluntary late start to their fishery, delaying the opening of their season to May 1st from April 1st. Entering new fisheries, vessel upgrades and travelling for employment in other sectors have been additional strategies employed. Community quotas were also suggested in both regions. We found that these communities, while threatened by changes in the fishery and Newfoundland economy more broadly, have innovative ways of responding to changes in two key ways: 1) working within the existing management structure (as the 4R harvesters did) to influence local applications of fisheries policy, and 2) creating news way to buy, sell, and market their catch (as the Fogo Island Co-operative and Shorefast Foundation have done). Local governments and community organizations have also lobbied for policy change but the impacts of these efforts are less 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".