Managing Interjurisdictional Waters Under the Great Lakes Charter Annex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spring 1998, the Nova Group of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, proposed to ship nearly 160 million gallons of Lake Superior water annually via tanker to Asia. See INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, PROTECTION OF THE WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKES: FINAL REPORT TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF CAVADA AND THE UNITED STATES 44 (2000) (2000 IJC Report). Nova's proposal coincided with declining water levels in the Great Lakes, and the resulting public outcry and pressure from other Great Lakes governments persuaded Ontario to revoke Nova's permit just a few months later. The Nova proposal prompted the eight American states and two Canadian provinces bordering the Great Lakes to revisit the Great Lakes Charter of 1985 and adopt Annex 2001. See Annex to the Great Lakes Charter, June 18, 2001, available at http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/docs/GreatLakesCharterAnnex.pdf Annex 2001 commits the Great Lakes governors and premiers to improve their management of Great Lakes water resources through binding agreements. Their self-imposed, three-year deadline for meeting this mandate is June 18, 2004. This article examines the history of water resources management in the Great Lakes Basin and considers the challenges and opportunities presented by Annex 2001.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".