Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract How will ocean governance actors and institutions handle a future where the abundance and spatial distribution of marine life changes rapidly and variably? The answer, this paper argues, will be influenced by inherited and changingocean proximity politics, whereby institutions and actors use spatial proximity or adjacency to legitimize particular forms of resource control, conservation and use. Focusing on United Nations and Canadian institutional contexts and recognizing state and non-state actors as agents of policy change, the paper documents and examines why and how spatial proximity has been invoked (i) as a principle for claiming, defining and implementing use rights, privileges and responsibilities for not just nation-states but also for other entities such as coastal communities and small-scale fisheries; (ii) to justify and legitimize rights, privileges and responsibilities for their interest and benefit; and (iii) to inform and challenge global and local discussions about principles such as conservation, sustainability and distributive equity. The future practical use of spatial closeness/distance for guiding policies of access and exclusion under conditions of change will likely be influenced by challenges associated with applying multiple and conflicting governance principles, accommodating diverse interests and interpretations of principle definition and application, and multiple forms of biophysical and social mobilities. The conclusion highlights four areas of further research and policy engagement for the study of ocean proximity politics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".