Fisher behaviour in coastal and marine fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research systematically reviews fisher behaviour in coastal and marine fisheries. Fisher behaviour refers to individual and group level action that reflects the psychological processing and social exchange of information in fisheries. Fisher behaviour is poorly conceptualized and explained in fisheries research, and the implications of fisher behaviour for governance outcomes remain uncertain. To address this gap, we present a systematic scoping review of peer‐reviewed literature ( n = 104 journal articles published from 2012 to 2017). Results highlight a typology of fisher behaviour and reveal insights into behavioural types and their explanations commonly used in conceptual and empirical models. This research reveals three major implications for governance. First, researchers can strengthen recommendations for governance by examining fisher behaviours as multilevel and multiscale phenomena. Second, researchers in governance can improve capacities to anticipate behavioural change with theoretical models that prioritize psychosocial variables, and interdisciplinary empirical research on the extrinsic factors that shape the fishers’ psychosocial responses to change in a local context. Third, social and policy sciences research is needed to reveal the governance barriers and opportunities for using new models that incorporate fisher behaviour to develop, implement and evaluate fisheries policies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".