MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392748701 · doi:10.5751/es-14552-290126

Community knowledge as a cornerstone for fisheries management

2024· article· en· W4392748701 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kayla M. Hamelin, Anthony Charles, Megan Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Eye InstituteOcean Frontier InstituteKillam Trusts
KeywordsCornerstoneFisheries managementFisheries scienceEnvironmental resource managementBusinessFisheryCommunity-based managementCommunity managementEnvironmental planningGeographyEcologyFishingEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The imperative to include stakeholders and rightsholders in fisheries management over the past 30 years has led to many changes in management regimes around the world, a key one being a move toward collaboration and co-management. This is reflected, for example, in Canada, where the newly revised Fisheries Act (2019, c.14, s.3) incorporates this imperative in part by citing “community knowledge” as a component in decision making for fisheries management. However, the lack of a formal definition makes it unclear what exactly is meant by “community” and when and how community knowledge can play a role in management. To investigate what community contributions to fisheries management can entail, and who these communities might include, we conducted a scoping literature review using the Scopus database to synthesize common outcomes from research on community involvement in fisheries management toward the goals of ecological, social, economic, and institutional sustainability. Enablers and barriers for successful collaborative initiatives were identified, covering conceptual, logistical, and communication-related factors. Key recommendations were compiled from a range of case studies to map a path toward full-spectrum sustainability for fisheries. From these principles and practices, we ultimately identified major considerations for the Canadian context, including the need to (1) clarify the distinction between fishing communities and the fishing industry; (2) strengthen social networks and communication channels to facilitate collective action; (3) track and transparently share successes and failures in collaborative efforts and outcomes; and (4) more explicitly consider community well-being as a fisheries management objective. From our synthesis, there are lessons to be learned for fisheries (social) scientists and managers working to enhance evidence-based fisheries management, whether within Canada or in other collaborative management settings globally.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0160.038
Scholarly communication0.0250.020
Open science0.0050.024
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and SocietySame topicCoastal and Marine ManagementFrench-language works237,207