MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079093263 · doi:10.7202/043226ar

The Legal Impact of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement on Canadian Water Exports

2005· article· en· W2079093263 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sophie Dufour

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFree trade agreementPosition (finance)Political scienceInternational tradeGeographyFree tradeBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the issue of Canadian water exports has assumed a prominent position on the policy agenda of both Canada and the United States. As water supplies in several western states of the U.S.A. have been increasingly depleted over the past three decades, the threat of a water crisis has raised interest in the possibility of diverting Canadian waters, originating presumably in the Great Lakes Basin. While the beginning of the 1980s has already witnessed a number of heated debates over Great Lakes water transfers, the signing of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement on the 2nd of January 1988, revives the polemic since it is viewed by some as a new menace to the future supply of Canadian waters. The present paper, which is divided in two parts, begins with an examination of a number of events which have raised significant concern about the prospect of major water transfers from the Great Lakes Basin, the latest being the conclusion of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement . It then analyses the legal effects of the Agreement on Canadian water resources. This study concludes that there is nothing in the deal to suggest that Canada has in any way conceded future access to its water resources to the United States.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207