Analysis of Canadian and American legislation for controlling exotic species in the Great Lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The legislation of the Great Lakes jurisdictions dealing with control of exotic species introduced through ballast water, canals, and recreational boating was analysed to determine whether the USA and Canada have the capacity to manage nuisance exotic species effectively. Despite the deleterious ecological effects attributed to exotic aquatic species, there is a lack of complementary legislation between Canada and the USA to remedy this problem. Current legislation is fragmented at the bilateral, national, and the state/provincial level. American legislative initiatives are far ahead of Canada's, especially for regulating ballast water in oceanic shipping. Canada lacks strong federal and provincial legislation to regulate ballast water in shipping and to prevent the secondary spread of exotic aquatic species through watersheds. Legislation to regulate ballast water is developing quickly among the US federal government and the Great Lakes states. However, legislation affecting the spread of exotic nuisance species via canals and recreational boaters is needed to complement ballast water laws and to give agencies a broader mandate for management. Amendment of the Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Canada Water Act could give the Canadian federal government authority to regulate ballast water in vessels entering the St Lawrence and to begin the rehabilitation of aquatic habitats impaired by nuisance exotic species. Preventing further species introduction and spread through the Great Lakes basin requires restricting certain shipping and boating practices. This can be achieved only by the enactment of complementary laws among all the American and Canadian jurisdictions. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".