MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964037966 · doi:10.7202/045732ar

Inter-local Water Agreements : Law, Geography, and NAFTA

2011· article· en· W1964037966 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Patrick Forest

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater tradingContext (archaeology)International tradeFree trade agreementPolitical scienceWater resourcesBusinessFree tradeGeographyWater conservationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has not only promoted free trade and intensified trading between the Parties to the agreement, it has also instigated passionate debates in regards to the legal status of water. The only existing water transfers between Canada and the United States have yet to be fully investigated, this despite the abundant literature dedicated to bulk water transfers. Transboundary local water supplies agreements between borderland communities have existed for many decades. However, in the context of NAFTA, a better understanding of the legal ramifications of these transfers for Canada is necessary. The aim of this paper is to introduce the concept of transboundary local water supplies and to establish whether or not they constitute a threat to Canada. The analysis is based on an interdisciplinary approach that draws upon literature from both geography and law. This paper stresses that these water transfers are not water exports under NAFTA, and do not represent a threat to Canada’s water resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207