Environmental Policy in the Great Lakes Region: Current Issues and Public Opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Great Lakes are an iconic natural feature of the boundary between Canada and the United States. In addition to their striking size and ecological importance, they also have great economic and cultural importance for the Great Lakes Region. Historically, the Lakes provided a means for regional trade, giving rise to outposts that now constitute the Region’s largest cities, Chicago and Toronto. An abundance of fresh water was also crucial for industrialization, and led to the construction of the many factories and power plants that line the shores of Lakes Michigan, Erie, and Ontario. Additionally, the Lakes serve as the backdrop of innumerable family photos of the vacationers who flock to them in the summer to splash in the waves or cast a fishing line. Despite their importance and iconic status, the Great Lakes have seen their fair share of challenges. Prime among these are environmental concerns, from localized pollution in the 19th century, to the fishery collapses of the 1950s, to current concerns over algal blooms and the potential introduction of Asian carp. While these concerns are not unique to the Great Lakes system, the scale of the Great Lakes Basin does make the Great Lakes a special case. Not only do the Lakes collectively hold 20% of the world’s fresh water, but the Basin includes two sovereign nations, eight US states and one Canadian province, thousands of local governments, more than 40 tribes and First Nations, and is home to more than 33 million residents. As a result, setting policies to regulate and protect these shared waters is a highly complex endeavor.This report reviews historical and current environmental problems in the Great Lakes and discusses attempts to address them through both joint (Canada-US) and unilateral policy. It then presents the results of a telephone survey of 1,247 residents in the Great Lakes Basin conducted in November and December 2013. The survey aimed to gauge public opinion on the value, current health and success of efforts to manage this shared resource, as well as measure residents’ support for a number of policy options to address issues ranging from invasive species and pharmaceutical contamination to climate change and energy. While more than 65 public opinion studies related to the Great Lakes have been conducted over the past three decades, few have included significant numbers of both American and Canadian respondents to allow for cross-border comparison. Moreover, few have covered such a wide range of topics as are included in this report. The findings in this paper allow us not only to provide a representative sample of opinion throughout the Basin, but to also note where national differences exist. Two companion reports, also utilizing data from this survey, delve more deeply into the issues of wind energy and hydraulic fracturing in the Great Lakes Region.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".