Crossing Boundaries, Crossing Scales: The Evolution of Environment and Resource Co‐Management
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
Abstract As an approach to mediating human–environment interactions, the co‐management of natural resources influences a diverse array of geographic endeavors. This article chronicles the development of the concept from its historical roots to the more recent past, where it has gained prominence as a tenable solution in situations of competing property claims and as a model of environmental governance. In surveying more that 15 years of experience with co‐management, we draw attention to several points of contention or debate, including concerns about power‐sharing and representation in co‐management arrangements, and the imprecise use of the term. Despite these tensions, the concept of co‐management continues to evolve and is attracting increasing attention. In probing the frontier of this subject, we highlight theoretical developments, evaluative challenges, cultural and ethical sensitivities, and the need to embrace uncertainty and complexity through adaptation and learning. Concluding reflections recognize the multifaceted nature of co‐management, potential benefits, and importance to geographers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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