Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the 1950s to the mid-seventies, Iceland’s efforts in international diplomacy were largely devoted to convincing other nations that Icelanders should control and utilise the resources of the waters within 12, then 50 and finally 200 nautical miles around the island. During the last quarter of the twentieth century, Icelandic politicians have devoted considerable time and effort to the debate on how to organise the utilisation of these resources and in what way the revenues from this harvest should be distributed. This paper gives a short account of the development of regulatory reforms in four types of Icelandic fisheries. None of these reformatory processes can be said to be a replica of any of the other processes. It seems apparent on the face of things that each reformatory process is unique and distinct from the others, except in its final outcome, the rule of the ITQs. However, this conclusion may be too short sighted. From the earliest history of regulatory reforms, it is evident that the ITQ system which eventually came into being was not the intended outcome. There is a common pattern for all the fisheries, however. First of all, serious attempts to reform management practices start when the fishery has collapsed or is close to collapse. Secondly, the first thing that stakeholders do is close the club that has access to the given fishery. Thirdly, a variety of rules are implemented to allocate participation rights when the club of participants has been closed. Fourthly, prior to the invention of the ITQ system, prices were used to manage fisheries in Iceland. It may be that management of fisheries by ITQs rather than through some form of taxes or fees has historical rather than logical roots.
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 | 0.041 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".