True insights or ticking boxes? Rapid assessment of rights‐based management in artisanal fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rights‐based fisheries management (RBFM) seeks to create market incentives to reduce competition, avoid overexploitation, and increase economic efficiency. Particularly for artisanal fisheries, however, assumptions of RBFM may not be met and its use needs to be carefully considered. This study applies an existing tool (SEASALT) to evaluate the strength of RBFM based on attributes of security, exclusivity, fish mortality, scale, responsibility, limitations, and transferability. Results for 17 fisheries in Mexico show a positive (nonsignificant) relationship between the strength of RBFM and stock status, and no effect on prices or landed value. Real‐world fisheries governance systems are much more complex than the simple linkages between attributes implied in SEASALT, but results highlight pre‐existing monitoring and enforcement capacity as essential for successful RBFM. Transitions to RBFM may strengthen this capacity, but likely cannot create it where it does not already exist. Based on our findings, RBFM strategies may benefit from group quotas with limited transferability to avoid negative social outcomes from consolidation or rent capture by intermediaries; this could potentially build on the latent capacity of traditional community associations common in many artisanal fisheries.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".