Caring for Pacific salmon: Reconsidering salmon‐human relationships
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
Caring for Pacific salmon – one of the most iconic creatures of the North American West Coast – is not a straightforward task but is based on diverse understandings and relationships between salmon, people and the more‐than‐human environment. Local small‐scale interactions, in particular, shape individual motivations to care for these fish and understand how best to do this. This article emerges from a collaborative research project with the Heiltsuk Nation, whose territory is located on the Central Coast of British Columbia (BC), Canada. Through ethnographic engagement with both Indigenous and non‐Indigenous residents and visitors of this area, this article illustrates that close interactions are at the core of why and how people care for salmon. Drawing on theoretical engagements with the concept, care is understood not as an innocent notion but as a complicated set of practices that can also involve killing salmon. These salmon‐human interactions transcend unidirectional dominance, evolving into reciprocal exchanges that distribute responsibility across species boundaries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it