Broadening Participation in Fisheries Management Planning: A Tale of Two Committees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management agencies increasingly seek to broaden stakeholder participation in fisheries decision making beyond commercial fisheries groups. This precipitates the challenge of meaningfully involving additional stakeholders without unjustifiably diminishing the role of commercial users. This research examines participants'; evaluations of one attempt to broaden but balance participation in groundfish management planning on Canada's Pacific coast. Commercial fishery and noncommercial fishery stakeholders were separated onto two advisory committees with more and less control over the design of the management plan, respectively. Respondents from the noncommercial fishery committee were accepting of this asymmetrical arrangement, provided they had sufficient opportunities to influence the design of the advisory process and define overarching objectives that would bound potential outcomes. Findings suggest several reasons that involvement in these early steps may be particularly important to meaningful participation of noncommercial fishery stakeholders within asymmetrical, multicommittee processes.
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 | 0.064 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".