Atlantic and Pacific halibut co‐management initiatives by Canadian fishermen's organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many fisheries managers and neoliberal fisheries economists promote Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) as a solution to the race for fish which can cause rent dissipation under competitive quota or open access fisheries. These actors consider the Canadian Pacific halibut ITQ fishery an example of successful achievement of these objectives. However, critics note the weak performance of this management model in distribution of benefits, increased capital costs to fishermen, deteriorating safety conditions, reductions in crew income and barriers to entry. They point to the layup system which successfully managed effort in the Pacific halibut fishery for four decades prior to the introduction of ITQs. A system similar to the layup has been used for Atlantic halibut since 2013, initiated by the Fish Food and Allied Workers (FFAW) representing owner‐operator license holders in the halibut fishery off the coast of western Newfoundland and southern Labrador. The FFAW rejected the two halibut management plan options presented to them by Fisheries and Oceans Canada: the status quo (a competitive 12‐hr “derby” fishery) or IQs, likely leading to ITQs. Instead, the FFAW worked with license holders to develop a management plan that required harvesters to choose between different fishing periods that spread fishing opportunities over time. This approach improved conservation results, delivered strong economic returns, distributed benefits widely to active fishermen, and allowed an even flow into the market. The authors consider the advantages of these Canadian east and west coast halibut co‐management systems and their broader application.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".