A Tale of Two Waters: the Missouri River, the Great Lakes and Management of Future Water Conflicts
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".