Gender, Critical Mass, and Natural Resource Co-Management in the Yukon
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
The Northern Review 41 (2015): 139–155Building on the research of White (2008) and Natcher (2013), who identified a paucity of female representation on co-management boards across the Canadian North, the research reported here set out to understand the implications of this gender imbalance for the experiences of women serving on natural resource co-management boards in the Yukon. Broadly speaking, resource co-management boards include a range of different institutional arrangements in which resource users and government come together to share management responsibilities (Yandle 2003). We explored whether critical mass—defined as a specific number or percentage of women necessary to make their participation within an institution effective—is considered by board members themselves to be a critical factor for the way women participate in co-management deliberations. Through semi-structured interviews with current and former board and staff members, our findings indicate that: 1) a majority of board members feel that the representation of women on co-management boards is necessary to the overall effectiveness of board decision making; and 2) women who ser ved on boards with other female members experienced significantly fewer barriers to their participation than when they were the sole female representative. The intent of this article is to offer a practical application of critical mass theory and, more pragmatically, identify ways in which gender can be accounted for more effectively in co-management processes in Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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