KEYS TO SUCCESS IN DEVELOPING THE FIRST JOINT TRANS-BOUNDARY WILDLIFE RESPONSE GUIDELINES: THE CANADA/UNITED STATES DIXON ENTRANCE EXAMPLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A paper written for the 2001 International Oil Spill Conference (Bergmann and Russo, 2001) discussed the first-of-its-kind, wildlife-response contingency planning effort underway in the trans-boundary area, known as Dixon Entrance, between British Columbia (B.C.) in Canada and Alaska in the United States (U.S.). The paper described how this initiative was conducted within the framework of Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and United States Coast Guard (USCG) joint contingency planning in Dixon Entrance. The paper focused on activities successfully completed at that time; namely, a 1999 workshop attended by key Canadian and U.S. stakeholders, which resulted in an agreement by Canadian and U.S. wildlife resource agency representatives to develop a joint Dixon Entrance wildlife response plan focusing on migratory birds and sea otters. This paper describes how, following the workshop, a joint Canada/U.S. Dixon Entrance (CANUSDIX) wildlife response working group was established to complete this task. The resulting Canada-United States Marine Spill Pollution Contingency Plan CANUSDIX Annex-Operation Appendix: Wildlife Response Guidelines (CANUSDIX Wildlife Response Guidelines) (DOI-OEPC et al, 2003) were completed and signed by appropriate Canadian and U.S. wildlife resource agency officials in April 2003, and were then adopted by the CCG and USCG in September 2003. The paper also provides an overview of the process used by working group members and their stakeholder partners to develop the guidelines. Moreover, the paper describes: (1) factors that helped contribute to the success of the effort; (2) challenges that had to be overcome; (3) milestones that helped keep the work on track; and (4) additional unanticipated benefits. Together, this information will allow other parties in trans-boundary areas around the world to use the Dixon Entrance wildlife response 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".