Providing Sufficient Streamflows in an Era of Competing Demands: FLOW 2008: Interdisciplinary Solutions to Instream Flow Problems; San Antonio, Texas, 7–9 October 2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Instream Flow Council (IFC) held its first‐ever conference to forge interdisciplinary solutions to the problem of providing sufficient streamflows for environmental purposes in an era of competing demands for freshwater. Conference participants were drawn from across the United States and Canada and even as far away as China, representing state and provincial fish and wildlife and regulatory agencies, federal agencies including the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nongovernmental organizations, consultants, industry, academics, and even private citizens. Attendees included biologists, geomorphologists, hydrologists, engineers, attorneys, social scientists, and policy makers. The goals of the meeting were to advance the integration of science and policy related to instream flow and to demonstrate the importance of public dialogue through the engagement of diverse stakeholders in cooperatively solving instream flow problems in the United States and Canada.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".