The Role of Regional Government in Sustainable Use of Common Pool Resources: The Case of Polar Bear Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This paper examines the role of three regional governments in the management of polar bears. In Nunavut, Canada a quota system has been used to control harvest, but the increasing de facto role of harvesters, who do not unanimously subscribe to conservation concerns, threatens the management structure. In Nunavik, Canada, no controls of polar bear harvest levels were instituted by higher levels of government and nor have grassroots organization developed such controls. In Greenland, Denmark, the conservation and economic need for quotas to be implemented by regional government has been recognized and quotas were introduced in January 2006. These three case studies show that regional governments must accept three roles for the sustainable use of polar bears. The first two are coordinating and the third is fostering. The coordinating roles are to provide a biologically appropriate level of management and to provide legal harvest control incentives to all resource users in order to offset economic incentives to over harvest. The fostering role is first to create local institutions, since these are not likely to develop as grassroots organizations, and then to assist harvesters in both understanding the conservation challenges and creating solutions."
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".