Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores processes and impacts of privatisation from the perspective of coastal communities, drawing on ideas of governance, rights and the Commons, as well as previous studies of privatisation and the associated phenomenon of ‘grabbing’. The analysis shows how diverse mechanisms of privatisation are reflected in five key dimensions, relating to (a) jurisdictions; (b) the range of rights; (c) magnitude of privatisation; (d) distributional implications; and (e) community perceptions. The practical aspects of these privatisation dimensions are illustrated through three coastal community examples, drawing on several years of participatory research, with various qualitative methods producing a set of insights from community participants. A key result relates to how the community perceives privatisation, which depends less on the generic attributes of privatisation and more on how well the outcomes fit with the community’s underlying values and strategic goals. Accordingly, among the many complexities of privatisation, attention to community perceptions may be especially important, particularly in terms of community reactions to privatisation of different forms. This fits with governance results from elsewhere, and reinforces the need to understand community aspects of the Commons, with implications for the ‘blue economy’ and the future of a possibly privatized ocean.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".