Aboriginal Gillnet Fishers, Scientists and the State: Interactions over Salmon Fisheries Management on the Nass and Skeena Rivers, British Columbia, Canada, 1955-1965
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
"This paper examines the interactions between Aboriginal gillnet fishers and the Canadian state over the regulations for the industrial salmon fishery on the Nass and Skeena Rivers of northern British Columbia in the 1950s and 1960s. In particular, it focuses on the discussions and conflicts between Aboriginal people, who comprised the majority of industrial fishers in the region, and state officials and scientists who were members of the Skeena Salmon Management Committee. The Canadian Department of Fisheries had created this committee in 1954 in response to declining salmon populations and a 1951 rock slide on the Skeena system which damaged the sockeye spawning runs. The Committee relied heavily on science to gain legitimacy for their increased restrictions on access to the resource, and made it a central feature of their public meetings. They also relied on it to encourage the native fishers to understand and accept the regulations. This approach did not work as expected. Native fishers continued to challenge the regulations, arguing state officials were unfairly penalizing small-boat fishers, and were overlooking greater threats to the resource such as larger and more efficient vessels and gear types. As well, the Aboriginal fishers also used information fisheries scientists had provided to point out inconsistencies in the regulations, particularly relating to the growing international offshore salmon fishery. Moreover, several Aboriginal communities also complained about some of the Committee's research projects such as counting fences and hatchery programs, arguing that they violated traditional Aboriginal treatment of salmon. While not all of these challenges led the Committee to alter its regulations and activities, some did, revealing the ways that science and management practices can be affected by interactions with groups involved in the process."
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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