MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4382139375 · doi:10.5751/es-13870-280229

Restorative diets: a methodological exploration comparing historical and contemporary salmon harvest rates

2023· article· en· W4382139375 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Erika R. Gavenus, Rachelle Beveridge, Terre Satterfield

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCorporate governanceFishingFisheries managementFisheryClimate changeGeographyColonialismEcologyBiologyBusinessArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Along the coast of what has come to be known as British Columbia, First Nations face persistent challenges related to the state of the fisheries on which they depend. Fisheries management strategies imposed by the colonial-through-to-federal governance regimes have been implicated in contributing to the challenges, and are rejected by many coastal First Nations who are reasserting governance authority over their fisheries. In particular, the current management approach continues to set ceilings on First Nations’ harvest rates (e.g., food, social, and ceremonial allocation). Too often the evidence used to determine such ceilings reflects diets and fishing practices deeply disrupted by social-ecological change, including, but not limited to, colonialism and climate change. Through this paper we use the example of salmon to propose harvest rates more consistent with less disrupted diets, what we refer to as restorative diets. Methodologically, we use empirical records on historical diets as a basis for envisioning what restorative diets might look like and for considering the magnitude of the difference between harvest rates consistent with such diets compared to contemporary diets. We do so by developing a model of restorative harvest rates in reference to caloric needs, the proportion of diets historically contributed by salmon, and the amount of salmon harvested per calorie, which we parameterize using existing empirical records. These methods yield coast-wide restorative harvest rates that range from 68 to 235 kg of salmon per person per year. Such estimates are three to 14 times higher than contemporary rates. We offer the methodology and findings presented here as both catalyst and guidance for further investigations of the conditions (ecological, social, and political) necessary to support the efforts of coastal First Nations, and Indigenous Peoples globally, to restore their fisheries, diets, and food 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.394
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.064 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and Society→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→