Comanagement of clams in Brazil: a framework to advance comparison
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
In Brazil, the recognition that fisheries encompass both natural ecosystems and human well-being has increased, but initiatives are focused largely on highly-valued species, ignoring socially relevant resources such as Venus clams (Anomalocardia brasiliana). We investigate two initiatives involving comanagement of Venus clams in the past two decades: the Marine Extractive Reserve "Pirajuba" and the "People of the Tides" project. We focus on the nature of the institutional arrangements, the involved groups (fishing communities and government), and the resource, as well as the steps involved in developing the partnerships, identifying which factors favor success in comanagement. Through these projects, fisherwomen got visibility and clam harvesters became the center of institutional developments. However, their rights in management will not become meaningful unless comanagement in protected areas is fully implemented, and government becomes more willing to share power in harvest planning, and to improve health, infrastructure, and the return of value to fisher families. Only then would such cooperation promote sustainability for Venus clams and fisher families.
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 | 0.000 | 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