Meeting Needs: A Consideration of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy and the Future of Food Fisheries Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The salmon fisheries of the Pacific coast of Canada have been heralded as some of the most abundant in the world. During the last two decades, stock declines have been accompanied by intensifying conflicts between resource users and resource managers. Since the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in R. v Sparrow (1990) federal strategies for the management of the Aboriginal food fisheries have been modified to accomodate emerging legal definitions of Aboriginal rights. In 1992, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans introduced the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) in response to the suggestions of the Court. The underlying policy objective was to provide a clear and simple regulatory framework for the management of the fisheries in a manner consistent with the Sparrow decision and with the communal nature of Aboriginal fishing rights. \n \n"I will argue that the AFS has met with limited success because it continues to impose principles and practices of a state management system that are culturally inappropriate for many First Nation communities and resource use systems. By ignoring the importance of the social, spiritual, and cultural purposes underlying the harvest and use of salmon in Aboriginal communities, promoters of the state model of fisheries management will remain in conflict with those who most value and rely on the resource. In practice, a quota severely limits the ability of Aboriginal fishers to provide for their needs through tradition resource distribution systems. Philosophically, it represents state perceptions of the salmon resource and its management that are opposed to those found in Aboriginal models. In this paper I will examine some of the reasons underlying opposition to the AFS within the cultural context of one coastal First Nation."
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| 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".