An Institutional Analysis of Indigenous Participatory Authority in International Institutions: The Cases of American and Canadian Tribal Participation in the Pacific Salmon Commission and the International Pacific Halibut Commission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of indigenous groups in global governance is a relatively neglected area of study. As policy actors with claims to sovereign rights, including the right to participate in co-management of natural resources, they represent potentially significant actors in certain areas of global governance, insofar as they are successful in gaining participatory authority within international institutions. This paper attempts to answer the question of how institutional rules configure in such a way as to grant relatively higher levels of participatory authority/sovereignty to indigenous groups. Using the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, I examine the relative participatory authority of indigenous groups from Canada and the United States in the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) and International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). I advance a theoretical model that emphasizes certain classes of rules and norms that either grant or constrain the relative participatory authority of these groups in these particular institutions. Specifically, I argue that the participation is especially impacted by position, boundary, choice, and aggregation rules, and that rules at the constitutional and collective-choice levels, as well as informal norms at the operational level act in such a way as to shape the relative participatory power of indigenous groups in institutional settings.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".