MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023843664 · doi:10.1061/40927(243)211

Considering Change: International Regulation of the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River System

2007· article· en· W2023843664 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa Bourget, Murray Clamen

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionHydropowerShoreRecreationInternational watersOrder (exchange)Upstream (networking)TreatyDownstream (manufacturing)Joint (building)Environmental resource managementBusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceCivil engineeringEngineeringLawOceanographyTelecommunicationsGeologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lake Ontario — St. Lawrence River system is influenced by a dam spanning the St. Lawrence River between Cornwall, Ontario, and Massena, New York. The dam was built and subsequently operated in accordance with a 1952 Order of Approval, amended in 1956, issued by the International Joint Commission, a binational U.S.-Canada organization created by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. In establishing the current operating regime, the existing Order of Approval considered uses of water for domestic and sanitary purposes, for navigation, and for hydropower. It also provided benefits for upstream shoreline property owners through reduced lake level fluctuations while providing protection for downstream property owners through provisions for considering water level and flow conditions that would have existed had the structure not been built. The International Joint Commission is considering whether or not to change the operating regime for the Lake Ontario — St. Lawrence River system, including the Order of Approval, to address such things as recreational boating interests and environmental issues and to take into account knowledge gained over the past 50 years and technological advances. This paper describes the Commission's decision process, from the establishment of a Study Board and Public Interest Advisory Group to conduct a five-year binational study, to consideration of independent review, obtaining public input, consulting with the U.S. and Canadian governments, leading to a Commission decision.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.009
Scholarly communication0.0120.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007Same topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207