Planning for Fisheries Co-Management in Canada's Northwest Coast: The case of Prince Rupert, B.C.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
" This major paper explores co-management in Prince Rupert, B.C., between active fish \nharvesters and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the government body responsible for \nfisheries management. By analysing a combination of DFO policies, Integrated Fisheries \nManagement Plans and eleven interviews conducted between March and April 2019 with \nfisheries participants in Prince Rupert, this paper explores how co-management is currently \nconfigured in the Canadian context and how the fisheries management system impacts access to \nseafood for local residents in Prince Rupert. Findings suggest that trust between fisheries \nparticipants and managers has eroded over the last several decades, largely due to a breakdown \nin communication between active fish harvesters and DFO, and the loss of visible scientific \nmonitoring on the part of DFO. Barriers to improving co-management were identified, including \ninequity in the licensing and quota system (leaving active harvesters disempowered and \neconomically vulnerable) and an inaccessible and inadequate advisory process. Meanwhile, the \ncurrent management system presents significant challenges to improving seafood access for local \nresidents, such as fishermen's indebtedness to large processors, an export-oriented supply chain, \nand complex, unsupportive regulations for local sales; these factors have eroded connections and \nbenefits to communities from the fishery. What emerges from this analysis is that active fish \nharvesters and managers seem to be operating under divergent assumptions of how to participate \nin co-management, who should participate, whose knowledge system is prioritised and what \nrelationships between competing user groups with different legal and historical ties to the fishery \nshould look like. Despite these conflicts, participants seem willing to work towards a system of \nco-management that is effective and just. The paper concludes with recommendations on how to \nmove forward with fisheries co-management that can help to empower active fish harvesters, and \ndraws a tentative link to how co-management could improve local seafood access. "
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".