La gestion nord-américaine des ressources hydrauliques, un modèle exportable ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Si le partage des ressources hydrauliques entre États entraîne souvent des relations conflictuelles, il existe des situations dans lesquelles la gestion de l'accès à l'eau peut se dérouler de manière pacifiée. Ainsi, les États-Unis et le Canada sont-ils parvenus à un consensus sur le partage de leurs eaux douces. Le fait que le Canada, bien que situé en amont, n'ait pas nécessairement cherché à imposer des conditions draconiennes à son voisin méridional, a favorisé les bonnes relations. Les États-Unis tirent dès lors, et malgré leur statut de pays d'aval, un large bénéfice des ressources en eau provenant du Canada. L'institution d'une Commission d'arbitrage et de règlement des différends est également pour beaucoup dans la gestion saine des eaux transfrontalières américano-canadiennes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".