Eliciting Values and Principles of Fishery Stakeholders in South Korea: A Methodological Exploration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing importance of the governance concept has meant consideration and incorporation of wide interests and worldviews of various stakeholder groups. Yet this trend may also intensify complexity, as more diverse values and principles are represented. We design a simple and interactive survey-based technique to elicit and examine stakeholder values and principles in an effort to help guide natural resource governance. This exploratory approach, called “P+ sort” to recognize its methodological foundation on both pile sort and Q sort methods, utilizes a semistructured sorting procedure with verbal questions to capture both quantitative and qualitative data. An empirical application of P+ sort was conducted in South Korean fisheries, which were undergoing a governance reform. Results show promising utilities of P+ sort for identifying value priorities and salient principles of stakeholder groups, examining the convergence as well as notable differences in these elements, and providing policy-relevant input into the natural resource governance process.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it