Perspectives for First Nations' Strategies Towards Local Marine Management in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the affirmation of Indigenous rights and title the jurisdiction over the management of natural resources within First Nations' territories has come into question. This thesis draws on the experience of two coastal Indigenous communities and the non-Indigenous community of Alert Bay to examine current marine management regimes and work towards establishing new ones. Local community experts are interviewed to determine their views on how marine resources within the Broughton Archipelago should be managed. Five major themes are identified by community experts as pivotal to the establishment of a new community-based marine management regime including: (1) trust building, (2) capacity, (3) power, (4) politics and (5) funding. To address these themes the extensive literature on collaborative management regimes is consulted and local and international examples of collaborative management are scrutinized. A place specific Community-based Adaptive Co-management planning framework, designed to address key themes raised by community members while incorporating traditional and contemporary principles and practice, is presented. --P. i.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".