MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125884821 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2014.1.299

CANADA – UNITED STATES (SALISH SEA) SPILL RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS: A COMPARISON

2014· article· en· W2125884821 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott Knutson, Craig Dougans, Gary A. Reiter, Don Rodden, Erik Kidd

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoast guardJurisdictionContingency planTerritorial watersOil spillGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementInternational lawLawEnvironmental scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Salish Sea comprises the inland marine waters of Washington and British Columbia and is intersected by an international border between Canada and the United States. Planning for oil spills that threaten to cross the international border is under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Coast Guard and the United States Coast Guard as described in the Canada-United States Joint Marine Contingency Plan. As Canadian companies gain approval to construct new pipelines in order to move oil sands from Alberta, Canada, to Vancouver, British Columbia, and westward, governments, agencies and citizens are publicly questioning whether current levels of oil spill preparedness and response equipment will be adequate for the increased tanker traffic from Canadian ports. This paper will be a single document that contains a snapshot of regulations, actual inventories and current philosophies that make up the 2014 response picture for the Salish Sea. It does not seek to denigrate either nation's response posture but rather to provide hard numbers as a common foundation for future discussions.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Oil Spill Conference ProceedingsSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207