Highliners and Moneymakers: Understanding Accommodation and Resistance in the Sto:lo Commercial Fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sto:lo fishers maintain that they are the original commercial fishers. However fisheries regulations enacted in 1888 pushed commercial fishing for the Sto:lo to margins outside the law. The Sto:lo continue to fish and engage in the commercial activity of fishing. Programs arising from a new Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy adopted in 1992 provided for a commercial opportunity after 100 years of fishing outside the margins of the law. Sto:lo fishers continue to fight for an aboriginal right to fish and continue to protest regulations that turned the everyday economic activity of fishing into a criminal act. Questions and conflicts arise over the place of this legally sanctioned commercial fishery as it relates to Sto:lo tradition. Some writing on this subject, describe the outlaw fishery as one of resistance to regulation. Others maintain is falls outside the realm of tradition in particular as regards capital accumulation. As a part of my discussion I seek to describe how the legal commercial fishery is as much an act of resistance conducted within the bounds of tradition as the outlaw fishery. Additionally, I seek to demonstrate that capital accumulation as a result of participation in the legal, commercial fishery is indeed embedded in tradition.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".