MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7016934665

Aboriginal Gillnet Fishers, Scientists and the State: Interactions over Salmon Fisheries Management on the Nass and Skeena Rivers, British Columbia, Canada, 1955-1965

2009· article· en· W7016934665 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyState (computer science)Work (physics)Fisheries managementHatcheryGovernment (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.153 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University)Same topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207