Institutionalizing co‐production diplomacy in contexts of long‐term epistemological conflict: A case study of cod fisheries governance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Knowledge co‐production is a collaborative approach to research that seeks to enable transformative societal change and improve outcomes in natural resource management and sustainable development. Instituting knowledge co‐production requires that researchers, decision‐makers, and stakeholders be willing to work together towards shared goals. In the context of fisheries management, co‐production represents a significant departure from the technocratic discourses and governance practices that have characterized decision‐making for decades. Moreover, some fisheries contexts have been plagued by persistent and seemingly intractable epistemological conflicts between stakeholders and decision‐makers. Such situations complicate the implementation of co‐production and raise questions about the extent to which researchers can achieve the aims of co‐production in situations of distrust, amenity, and entrenched positions. We use the case study of Northern Cod, a stock of Atlantic Cod ( Gadus morhua ) governance in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, a case of long‐standing conflict between the regulator, fishers, Indigenous peoples, and industry parties, to explore whether and how co‐production can enable collaborative research leading to “transformative societal change.” We find five factors complicating uptake of co‐production in the governance of Northern Cod: (i) competing perspectives exist regarding the relative worth of different types of knowledge; (ii) links between epistemic preferences and interests; (iii) barriers related to access and inclusion in governance spaces; (iv) barriers related to institutional design; and, (v) conflict‐ridden stakeholder relations. In a context of persistent epistemological conflict and distrust, we propose that knowledge co‐production focus on diplomacy through science with an aim to repair relationships rather than produce new knowledge that can serve as evidence in decision‐making as the primary goal of the co‐production process.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it