Green paradiplomacy and water resource management in North America: the case of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin
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
Sharing the world's largest freshwater lake system, Canada and United States have for over a hundred years sought to jointly manage this vital resource. However, in accordance with multi-level governance and paradiplomacy literature, it appears that this collaboration has considerably changed over the last thirty years. From an initial bilateral cooperation between federal authorities, provinces and US states became prominent actors in cross-border water governance, and, in this sense, a green transboundary paradiplomacy has emerged along the 49th parallel. In particular, a specific cross-border organization, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, developed an interesting water regime, and adopted recently a dual tool for water governance in 2005, called the “Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact” and its non-binding twin the “Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Resources Agreement”, which aim to prevent massive water transfer outside the basin. Adopting a green paradiplomacy and multi-level governance perspective, this article aims to analyze in depth this new environmental regime and the legislative implementation process of this dual agreement. Then, we will begin a broader reflection on cross-border and subnational environmental governance in North America.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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