Paving the Way Towards Co-Management through Participatory Research: A Case Study with Artisanal Fisheries in Uruguay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"In Uruguay, both artisanal fishers and the State agency in charge of fisheries management (DINARA) have shown interest in seeking co-management arrangements, leaving behind the top-down regime, still prevalent today. Our research is based on a case study in Piri??polis (coastal R??o de la Plata), in which a participatory research process among fishery stakeholders (fishers, DINARA, University scientists, NGOs) was facilitated to investigate its contributions to the emergence of co-management. Our findings show that participatory research had an impact on the various faces of co-management: (1) power sharing: power was actually shared during the research process, (2) institution building: a multi-stakeholder group (POPA), with a common vision and goals, was created, (3) trust building: trust among participants increased, (4) process: the process of group formation was considered important by participants, (5) learning: stakeholders learned skills for participation, among others, (6) problem solving: two problem-solving exercises were conducted (POPA started with the problem of sea lion impact on the fishery but ended up addressing the competition from imported pangasius), (7) governance: a diversity of stakeholders of the initial problem identified by fishers participated in the process. These impacts on co-management are indeed useful criteria for evaluating the outcomes of participatory research as a knowledge co-production approach in which resource users participate of the entire research, and whose final aim is community empowerment. When evaluating the process of participatory research, our case study contributed to identifying several criteria that can facilitate co-management, such as: participation of all stakeholder groups of the selected problem/topic; participants' representativeness; involvement of all stakeholder groups in every research stage; independent facilitation; collective decision-making through deliberative and consensus-building processes; and appropriate information management. This research provides empirical evidence to support the claim that participatory research is a strategy to facilitate and improve co-management."
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 | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".