Putting Fishers ’ Knowledge to Work – Conference Proceedings, Page 44 PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN THE BRITISH COLUMBIA GROUNDFISH FISHERY.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The benefits of full participation by fishers in stock assessment research are demonstrated through two examples from the groundfish fishery in British Columbia, Canada. The first example summarizes a joint acoustic study to estimate the biomass of a shoal of widow rockfish (Sebastes entomelas) in BC waters. In this example, the fishers posed the initial experimental hypothesis, provided the essential background information needed to plan the study, and were full participants in the conduct, analysis, and documentation. The second example describes the impact of a fisher critique of a stock assessment of silvergray rockfish (S. brevispinis). They argued that the observed trends in size and age could have been caused by the introduction of Individual Quota Management, because IVQ’s had led to subtle shifts in the spatial distribution of catches. In response to their criticism, a preliminary study was jointly conducted; the results of which partially supported their concern. These results are now being used to improve the sampling and assessment techniques. We suggest that it is a mistake to focus on fishers simply as data collectors or knowledge sources, thereby ignoring their skills in hypothesis formulation, research design, and interpretation. Phrases such as “incorporating fisher (local, or traditional) knowledge ” are not only incorrect but are pejorative in implying that fishers are limited in what they can contribute to the scientific process. We suggest that Participatory Research represents a more effective intuitive framework for incorporating their full expertise into fisheries research. In this paper, we have summarized the characteristics of two studies that facilitated the participation.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".