MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405007143 · doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106541

Caught in the middle - Inaction and overlap in governance and decision-making for Canada’s imperiled wild steelhead

2024· article· en· W4405007143 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amanda L. Jeanson, Andrew N. Kadykalo, Steven J. Cooke, Nathan Young

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureGenome Canada
KeywordsCorporate governanceBusinessFisheryBiologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biodiversity loss is one of the most serious challenges facing humanity and planetary well-being. Even for iconic species of great cultural and symbolic value, we are largely failing to preserve them and the habitats upon which they depend. This article analyzes one such troubling case, the precipitous decline of wild steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) populations in British Columbia’s Thompson River. These populations are declining despite high levels of public attention and interventions from both provincial and federal governments. This raises important questions about how such losses could happen despite intense scrutiny and high motivation for action. Our analysis of this case study is based on a review of policy documents and interviews with steelhead anglers (42) and fisheries managers (5) in the Thompson River region. Our analysis revealed that Thompson steelhead are ‘caught in the middle’ of competing government priorities, jurisdictional uncertainties and overlap, and recalcitrant rightsholder and stakeholder conflicts. The result is policy and decision-making paralysis that has entrenched the decline. We submit that there are lessons to be learned from this case for biodiversity management in Canada and elsewhere that involve deep and urgent reforms to environmental governance.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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