When Communities Collide: Sorting Out the Partners in Co-Management of British Columbian Fisheries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"'Co-management' is a pervasive theme in current debates about appropriate institutional arrangements for managing fisheries in British Columbia, as elsewhere in Canada - and the world. This paper addresses a question that is central to the co-management debate in this and other complex, industrialized fisheries: When there are many claimants to rights in the fishery, how are the legitimate claimants to be selected and how are their rights to be defined?... \n \n "After discussing the factors that have enabled these particular fisheries to rather readily develop co-management arrangements, the paper briefly reviews the potential and actual principles and practices for determination of legitimate claimants groups and the nature of their rights. The paper also considers some of the implications of shifting the emphasis in allocation of the benefits of a fishery away from rights to share in access and toward rights to share in output."
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it