The St. Mary and Milk Rivers: The 1921 Order Revisited
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The St. Mary and Milk Rivers arise adjacent to one another in the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains; both rivers flow north from Montana into Alberta. Actions taken by American interests to develop irrigated agriculture in the lower Milk River basin and by Canadian interests to develop irrigation, both using St. Mary River water, led to a significant water dispute. This resulted in Article VI of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. Questions over the interpretation of Article VI in turn led to a series of hearings and ultimately to the International Joint Commission's 1921 Order concerning apportionment of the St. Mary and Milk Rivers. Ever since, the apportionment of the waters of these rivers has followed the 1921 Order, allowing each nation a secure understanding of their respective share of the waters thus permitting the planning and development of irrigation. The terms of the 1921 Order have been questioned at least three times since, most recently in 2003 when Montana requested an evaluation of the 1921 Order pursuant to Article VI of the Boundary Waters Treaty. In response to Montana's concerns the International Joint Commission held a series of public meetings in the basins in 2004. Following this public process, some 108 documents were placed on the Commission's website. This paper provides a synthesis of the public record and discusses the public comments in light of the Boundary Waters Treaty, the 1921 Order and the administration of apportionment.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it