MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140744236 · doi:10.4314/wsa.v34i4.183659

Aquatic invasive species rapid response planning partnerships in the Lake Champlain basin: Bridging international, political, social, and economic gaps

2019· article· en· W2140744236 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater SA · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvasive speciesThreatened speciesIntroduced speciesLegislationAction planWatershedWatershed managementWildlifeEnvironmental planningGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyPolitical scienceBiologyHabitatEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lake Champlain Basin is threatened by several non-native invasive plant and animal species. The U.S. states of Vermont and New York, and the province of Quebec, Canada share the Lake Champlain watershed. The three jurisdictions work together to protect their water resources and implement Opportunities for Action, a long-term watershed management plan for the Basin. Together they recognise the need to control the introduction, spread, and impact of non-native invasive species in order to preserve the biological and ecological integrity of the Lake Champlain ecosystem independent of political borders. The Lake Champlain Basin Program Aquatic Nuisance Species Subcommittee is developing an invasive species rapid response action plan that addresses invasive species control and spread prevention in the Basin. A rapid response is an effort to contain and control non-native invasive species introductions while they are localised in a short amount of time, such as weeks or months, before they become established and more expensive to manage. Lake managers, policy makers, scientists, academics, and representatives of local watershed organisations from the three jurisdictions have shared information and data to foster the development of a comprehensive plan. Gaps in interstate and inter-jurisdictional laws and policy have been identified by reviewing all necessary permits for aquatic invasive species control methods. Examining the interface of law, policy, and permits aids in identifying regulatory and policy inadequacies, and opportunities for corrective legislation. Partnering among diverse organisations has allowed strategic invasive species rapid response planning that builds on managers’ and policy makers’ concerns, provides options, fosters inter-jurisdictional cooperation, and considers social, economic, and political impacts of invasive species management. The rapid response planning process identifies lead agencies from each of the three jurisdictions, recommends the formation of one governing body, and includes detailed steps of a rapid response process. The goal of the rapid response plan is to foster dialogue among permit applicants, scientists, and regulatory agencies, to ensure the fastest action possible. The Lake Champlain Basin invasive species rapid response planning process provides an applicable model for the United Nations Educational Scientific Organisation Hydrology for the Environment, Life, and Policy (HELP) basins around the world.Keywords: aquatic invasive species, aquatic nuisance species, Lake Champlain, lake management, integrated water resource management, rapid response plan

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.262
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