What is “usable” knowledge? Perceived barriers for integrating new knowledge into management of an iconic Canadian fishery
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
Understanding the perspectives of knowledge users and the demands of their decision-making environment would benefit researchers looking to enhance the utility of the knowledge they generate. Using the Fraser River Pacific salmon fishery as a case study, we investigate the views of 49 government employees and stakeholders regarding the barriers to incorporating new knowledge into fisheries management. Our study uses analysis of qualitative data structured by a knowledge–action framework, which revealed that 90% of respondents perceived the contextual dimension (e.g., institutional structures and norms) as a barrier for incorporating new knowledge, followed by barriers related to the characteristics of knowledge actors (52% of respondents), characteristics of the knowledge (27%), time and timing (27%), knowledge transfer strategies (17%), and relational dimension (8%). The identified barriers have indirect–direct relationship with knowledge producers and appear hierarchical in nature. We note that informal relationships can enable conditions whereby knowledge users can access new knowledge, and knowledge producers can gain insights on users’ needs. We discuss lessons learned from the case, which we believe can be applied more beyond fisheries.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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