Great Lakes agreement calls for binational science priorities and action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An amended Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), signed by officials from Canada and the United States at a 7 September ceremony in Washington, D. C., will facilitate efforts by the two countries to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Waters of the Great Lakes.” The agreement calls on the countries to cooperate and collaborate; develop programs, practices, and technology necessary to better understand the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem; and eliminate or reduce environmental threats to Great Lakes waters. The amended GLWQA specifically calls for the establishment of “binational priorities for science and action to address current and future threats” to the quality of Great Lakes waters within 18 months. In addition, the agreement calls on the International Joint Commission (IJC) to establish a Great Lakes science advisory board.
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 | 0.054 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.013 |
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".