ITQs from a Community Perspective: The Case of the Canadian Scotia-Fundy Groundfish Fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"There continues to be considerable interest in using rights-based management to prevent overfishing and overcapitalization. With implementation of a number of these types of regimes, the aim of current research has been to evaluate these regimes for their effectiveness and far their impact on communities. \n \n"Community issues duster around social equity, the distribution of resource rights. How resources are distributed affects individuals' material and social well-being political power. Distributive patterns also affect the fate of local, treasured institutions. From a fishing community's viewpoint, concentration of resource use-rights is the most salient and threatening consequence of instituting an ITQ system. Norwegians successfully resisted transferability and the Canadians chose to phase in this component largely because transferability makes concentration possible. \n \n"A social benefit of successful fishery management is sustainability. However, it is not clear that ITQ systems promote conservation. ITQs may increase individuals' incentives to cheat the system by highgrading, dumping, and illegal landings and harvesting small fish because they bring immediate profits."
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".