MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309196188 · doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105384

Enabling Indigenous innovations to re-centre social licence to operate in the Blue Economy

2022· article· en· W4309196188 on OpenAlexaff
Peci Lyons, Sara Mynott, Jess Melbourne-Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousNegotiationCorporate governanceContext (archaeology)General partnershipEconomyBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable, inclusive and equitable development and expansion of the Blue Economy hinges on deliberative and responsible negotiations and an understanding of the distribution of benefits, resource ownership and risks within community and interest groups and Indigenous Peoples. In this review we examine questions of governance and mechanisms for Indigenous participation and inclusion in the distribution of economic benefits, and monitoring and managing environmental and cultural impacts of Blue Economy industries. We suggest a shift in practice of social licence to operate such that consent is granted by Indigenous groups based on their perspective of social licence at all stages of the project life-cycle and at each interface where new social and cultural risks and opportunities emerge. Such a shift in practice across the Blue Economy requires the consideration of multiple collaborative arrangements and a platform for Indigenous driven transformation in how Indigenous Peoples participate in Blue Economy sectors and in business agreements based on their particular historical, social, cultural and economic context and goals. Such as an arrangement centres on new competencies that includes adaptive capacities within the particular blue economic partnership governance systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine PolicySame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207