DEVELOPING GUIDELINES FOR JOINT TRANS-BOUNDARY RESOURCE AGENCY INPUT TO DISPERSANT USE, IN-SITUBURNING, AND PLACES OF REFUGE DECISION-MAKING: THE CANADA/UNITED States Dixon Entrance Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Papers presented at the 2001 and 2005 International Oil Spill Conferences (IOSCs) discussed the development of the first-of-its-kind trans-boundary wildlife response guidelines, which were completed for the area known as Dixon Entrance between British Columbia (BC) in Canada and Alaska in the United States (U.S.). This work was conducted within the framework of Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and United States Coast Guard (USCG) joint contingency planning as outlined in the Annex 5 Canada-United States Dixon Entrance-Geographical Annex to the Canada-United States Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan (Canada-U.S. Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan CANUSDIX Annex). Along with other topics, the 2005 IOSC paper described a number of unanticipated benefits resulting from the development of the guidelines. This included establishing stakeholder partnerships which facilitated additional joint trans-boundary pre-incident planning. Following the completion of the Canada-U.S. Dixon Entrance (CANUSDIX) wildlife response guidelines in September 2003, attention was turned to examining trans-boundary decision-making associated with dispersant use, in-situ burning, and places of refuge identification. Subsequently, a joint CANUSDIX Resource Agency Working Group was established to address resource-related topics for activities supporting dispersant use, in-situ burning, and places of refuge decision-making in the Dixon Entrance trans-boundary area. Over the next 2.5 years, working group members prepared draft guidelines for resource agency input to those response activities. In March 2006, the Canadian and U.S. Federal, Canadian Provincial, and State of Alaska resource agencies with jurisdiction in the Dixon Entrance area, finalized the CANUSDIX Guidelines for Resource Agency Input to Dispersant Use, In-Situ Burning, and Places of Refuge Decision-Making (CANUSDIX Resource Agency Guidelines) and submitted the document to the CCG and USCG for inclusion in the Canada-U.S. Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan CANUSDIX Annex. This paper provides an overview of the development of the CANUSDIX Resource Agency Guidelines; a description of the information included in the guidelines; and how the guidelines fit within the CCG and USCG incident management structures. Together, this information will allow other parties in trans-boundary areas around the world to use the CANUSDIX Resource Agency Guidelines, and the process undertaken to develop the document, as a model for conducting similar pre-incident planning.
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 | 0.111 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".