Legitimacy of Different Knowledge Types in Natural Resource Governance and Their Functions in Inter-Institutional Gaps
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
This study expands the Inter-Institutional Gaps (IIGs) framework to conceptualize the legitimacy associated with different types of ecological knowledge (e.g., scientific, traditional and local) used in natural resource governance. We draw on primary qualitative data, and document analysis to examine a case of inland fisheries management in the north-eastern floodplain of Bangladesh. We posit that the pragmatic, moral, cognitive, and regulative legitimacy for different types of ecological knowledge are repeatedly reevaluated by rule-makers and resource users in the process of rule-devising. Results show that inter-institutional gaps may be perpetuated when formal rules do not sufficiently consider traditional and local ecological knowledge. While it is widely proposed that systematically incorporating different knowledge types can better address local-national policy problems, this study underscores that the source of legitimacies for different knowledge types often differs across formal and informal institutional actors. Recognizing the differences is critical to fishers’ resource management.
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