<i>Netukulimk</i> Past and Present: Míkmaw Ethics and the Atlantic Fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Míkmaq began to sell their furs to Europeans more than four centuries ago, while contending directly and often violently with Europeans for the control of Atlantic fishing grounds. Although Míkmaq were slowly displaced and reduced to destitution by settlers, they continued to hunt, fish and trap on a reduced scale and remained largely independent until the 1960s, when new federal licensing regimes for fishing contributed to a surge of Míkmaw nationalism. Since 1985, Canadian courts have repeatedly vindicated Míkmaw treaty hunting, fishing and trading rights, including offshore rights, culminating in a 1999 Canadian Supreme Court ruling affirming their right to secure a “moderate livelihood” by fishing commercially. Ottawa continues to try to regulate the Míkmaw fishery, however, and this resulted in sporadic violence during the 2000 and 2001 fishing seasons. Meanwhile, commercial groundfish and herring stocks in the region have collapsed, and salmon are threatened with extinction. This ecological and economic disaster has been the focus of a public relations war over responsible fishing between federal bureaucrats and Míkmaq. For the Míkmaq, netukulimk symbolizes their capacity to do a better job of conservation. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has responded by asserting its “scientific” superiority. This article reviews the evidence for responsible Míkmaw use of living resources through the early nineteenth century, when Míkmaq became demographically and economically marginalized, and the evidence for overfishing and mismanagement of Atlantic fisheries in the twentieth century. Although the conditions that made Míkmaq fishing self-regulating no longer exist, the federal management regime is even more of a threat to the survival of fish stocks and fishing communities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".