From Policy Instruments to Action Arenas: The Right to Self-Govern Under Conditions of Social-Ecological Change in the Nova Scotian Lobster Fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"To govern the commons, states often focus on structures or instruments, such as delegated co-management or tradable quotas. This research argues that this emphasis often presents a trade-off with making investments into socially just action arenas. I revisit the case of the Port Lameron groundfish and lobster fishery in Southwest Nova Scotia, Canada, originally explored by Elinor Ostrom in Governing the Commons (1990) based on research by Davis (1984). In the spring and summer of 2012, I conducted ethnographic field research consisting of participant observation, face-to-face surveys, and semi-structured interviews. I pay particular attention to how Ostroms design principles have interacted and changed over time, using primary literature from Maine as a counter-example. The results of this research illustrate the fragilities of this system, and provide a dynamic application of Ostroms design principles. In particular, I show that how the combination of a lack of recognition of customary institutions and weak collective-choice arrangements have led to rules that are not congruent with local conditions. These interactions are mutually reinforcing, as incongruent rules are a disincentive for harvesters to participate in decision-making, which reinforces the need for strong top-down governance. The erosion of trust among harvesters, associations, and the state has led to a governance system that is rich in rules and monitoring, but lacking effective procedures to develop harvesting strategies that meet the sustainability goals of the state and livelihood goals of fish harvesters. Recent attempts by harvesters to form new associations to 'take back the industry' highlight the attempt to re-center the commons around socially just action arenas rather than policy instruments."
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".