The peaceful resolution of U.S.-Mexican transboundary water disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To deal with boundary and transboundary water issues along their border, the United States and Mexico established the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) in 1889. Initially dealing only with surface water flows, its flexibility permitted changes such that groundwater and water quality issues could be addressed. In 1994, the U.S., Mexico, and Canada adopted the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) primarily to facilitate trade, but which can govern water as an article of commerce. Both NAFTA and the IBWC have been instrumental in promoting peaceful solutions to water issues. The article examines three cases: (1) Mexico's protesting of a U.S. plan to line the All-American Canal on the Mexico-California; (2) the underdelivery of Mexican Rio Grande water to the U.S. state of Texas; and (3) the case of an aquifer entirely within Mexico whose supply is being stressed because of a shift in agricultural production prompted by NAFTA. The article concludes that both countries should: (1) develop a more formal system for groundwater issues and (2) exercise vigilance with respect to NAFTA's ability to treat water solely as an economic good.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".