Great Lakes Compact and an Ohio Constitutional Amendment: Local Protectionism and Regional Cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Great Lakes represent a precious natural resource that holds approximately twenty percent of all the fresh water on earth. Its sheer size creates an inherent regional connectedness among eight states and two Canadian provinces. While each of these actors rely heavily on the health of the Great Lakes for its individual economic well-being and quality of life, proper regional management of the Lakes has historically proven difficult. The passage of the Great Lakes Compact marks a significant step towards the successful management of the Great Lakes water resources. The Compact’s structure recognizes modern science and creates a unique balance of regional protection and state autonomy. Its ultimate effectiveness will depend on the states’ abilities to cooperate on a regional level. A 2008 state constitutional amendment passed in Ohio, however, demonstrates how local protectionist attitudes can erode the spirit of cooperation necessary to implement an effective regional water management regime.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".