MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1782388819

Devil's Dilemma: More Loaves and Fewer Fishes

2007· article· en· W1782388819 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jamie Benidickson

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Resources and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionTreatyDiplomacyInternational watersGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceDilemmaPoliticsWater tradingWater qualityBoundary (topology)LawWater resourcesEcologyWater conservation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the international legal and political challenges to controlling the water levels in North Dakota's Devil's Lake. To address the lake's rising water levels, the North Dakota government sought to create an outlet from Devil's Lake to the Sheyenne River. The water would flow to Manitoba's Lake Winnipeg, potentially in violation of the Canada/US 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty and causing significant environmental disruption. Critics and proponents of the outlets faced tension in scientific discourse, in litigation and in international diplomacy. A non-legally-binding agreement was made with the Canadian ambassador regarding the Devil's Lake water outlet. The resulting outlet from Devil's Lake caused Sheyenne River sulphate levels to exceed allowable levels, and the North Dakota State Water Commission successfully applied to have the sulphate standard relaxed by 50%. The unilateral American action, which directly impacted the water quality in Lake Winnipeg, was condemned by Canadian politicians. The Devil's Lake controversy points to a larger difficulty: Canadian and American actors are becoming less committed to the existing legal regime for addressing trans-boundary water issues, and are sometimes distrustful of international legal mechanisms to resolve joint water issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicWater Resources and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207