Evaluating local rules and practices for avoiding tragedies in small-scale fisheries of oxbow lakes, Southern Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the key issues facing fishery managers, policy-makers and researchers has been acknowledging local institutions and rule systems for managing common pool resources. In this paper, we discuss local institutions and rule systems of community fisheries from two oxbow lake Fisheries in Southern Bangladesh. Both of the fisheries have been under private and state management systems resulting in different management outcomes. Control of fishers and stocking for production enhancement have been key management options of the lakes, but progress has not been satisfactory due to higher associated costs of management and uneven resource benefits distribution. On the other hand, community fisheries have focused on sharing benefits, controlling access, avoiding conflict and maintaining ecosystem health. Community fisheries have been managed through local rules and management practices above and beyond government regulations. Taking community fisheries in Bangladesh as a model fisheries and examining local rules as an effective means of controlling fisher access to a common resource, we explore here the impacts of local rules that have had different levels of governance outcomes in relation to state and private systems. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews (40 individuals) and group meetings (one for each site covering 15–20 individuals). Reviews of secondary records also support the analysis. Findings of this study highlight the advantages of local rules and also raise questions about how differential property rights and lack of negotiation power of local communities have constrained the success of community fisheries. At the group level, the capacity of local fishers to make their own rules and implement them locally is a critical factor for community fisheries systems.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".