A Tale of Two Waters: the Missouri River, the Great Lakes and Management of Future Water Conflicts
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
Abstract This paper analyzes recent developments regarding Missouri River management and water use, and the potential for an emerging inter-basin water dispute involving the Great Lakes. It is suggested that revisions to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' master manual for the Missouri River and increasing efforts to put Missouri River water to beneficial use in support of economic growth present the prospect of low water levels in the Mississippi River. With a history of looking to the Chicago diversion as a source for augmenting flows in the Mississippi River, it may yet again prove to be an irresistible temptation. The institutional capacity for managing such a water dispute seems surprisingly weak. The direction suggested is that mechanisms should be installed to ensure that Great Lakes water remains in its basin, consistent with watershed management practices. The recent efforts by the Great Lakes states and provinces represent an important development in this direction. It is further suggested that demand pressures in the Missouri River should be met through a similar commitment, potentially through a water sharing arrangement on the Missouri River, something which could be encouraged in part by ensuring stricter controls on the Chicago diversion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it