MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154594357 · doi:10.15021/00002658

Commons Theory for Marine Resource Management in a Complex World

2005· article· en· W2154594357 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTragedy of the commonsSubsistence agricultureCommonsResource (disambiguation)Government (linguistics)IndigenousResource management (computing)Common-pool resourceGeographyFisheryEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceEcologyLawArchaeologyEconomicsAgricultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. COMMONS CONCEPT AND THEORY I carried out my first study ofcommunity-based resource management in the mid-1970s in the Cree Indian village of Chisasibi, James Bay, in eastern subarctic Canada. As a recent science Phl]), I had no training to appreciate local resource management institutions and traditional knowledge. Worse, as a member ofa generation ofstudents under the influence ofthe tragedy of the concept, I was predisposed to believing that resources had to be protected from the users by government resource managers and appropriately trained scientists. This belief was shaken somewhat by the results of my studies of Cree fishers and their productive and orderly fishgry [BERKEs 1977]. This was a subsistence fishery, with no commercial component, carried out in the coastal waters of James Bay. There were no apparent rules or regulations in its conduct. As an indigenous subsistence fishery, it operated outside the sphere ofgovernment regulations. Yet, as it turned cyut, there was indeed a system, and the fishers were selforganized and selfimanaged, unlike the tragedy ofthe [BERKEs 1999, chapter 7, sumniarizes some ten years ofwork with this fishery]. The tragedy ofthe is often a starting point in commons discussions. Until the 1980s, it was the principal in which commons were considered. Hardin [1968] used the example of an imaginary pasture in Medieval England to which cattle herders have free and open access (i.e. a commons). Each herder receives a direct benefit (say +1) from adding one more. animal to graze in the pasture, whereas the costs of degrading the pasture are shared by all (a fraction of-1). Thus, each herder has the incentive to put as many cattle on the pasture as he can. Putting more animals on the pasture is the economically rational choice; yet everyone exercising their rational choice leads to the degradation ofthe pasture-hence the tragedy. The James Bay. Cree fishery did not fit this model at all. The fishers were able to decide among themselves on the rules of conduct of the fishery, and were able to persuade more or less everyone to fbllow those The rules were not written down, and the Cree themselves did not think ofthem as rules. It was simply the way things were done. This locally designed fishing system was quite different from biological management systems generally applicable

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.253 · 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