Fisheries Conservation in an Anarchical System: A Comparison of Rational Choice and Constructivist Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores international law’s response to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing on the high seas, paying particular attention to non-flag state enforcement of regional and international fisheries law. Current developments in high seas fisheries law involve the placing of limits on two venerable principles of the law of the sea, namely the freedom of states to fish on the high seas, and the jurisdiction of flag states over their vessels. These two principles contribute to the structure of high seas fisheries as an open-access common property resource (open-access CPR), a category of resources which are notoriously difficult to conserve and manage. A number of innovations have been introduced into high seas fisheries law that have the effect of gradually altering the open-access CPR structure of high seas fisheries, moving this resource closer to the category of club goods, which implies limitations on access to resources to members of a ‘club.’ The shift from open-access CPR to club good is here analysed from the perspective of constructivism and rational choice.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".