MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exchange Relationships in Inshore Fisheries<sup>1</sup>

2008· article· en· W2017527665 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Forum · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransaction costEthnographySocial exchange theoryContext (archaeology)Variety (cybernetics)FisheryInformation exchangeParticipant observationBusinessSociologyEconomicsMicroeconomicsGeographySocial scienceBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on the long‐term, informal exchange strategies of harvesters and dealers working in inshore fisheries has been important to theory surrounding economic exchange. In transaction costs economics, this research provides evidence for economic exchange governed by trust, and in exchange theory, it provides evidence for the emergence of cooperation and trust. In this article I examine the emergence of economic exchange relationships in the new sea urchin fishery. The research is ethnographic in nature, utilizing a variety of data sources including participant observation, in‐depth interviews, and existing quantitative data. I find that, just as experience or improved efficiency can have an impact on the emergence of trust between exchange partners, potential exchange partners can be deemed untrustworthy based on general characteristics unrelated to the particular individual. Once established, these assessments become part of the strategic context of exchange in the fishery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it