MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279291479

Niagara River (Ontario) Remedial Action Plan fonds, 1984-1997, n.d.

2014· article· en· W2279291479 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chantal Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemedial actionAction planCommissionGovernment (linguistics)Environmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionGeographyEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceLawEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Niagara River Remedial Action Plan was part of an initiative to restore the integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. In 1972, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed by both Canada and the United States to demonstrate their commitment to protecting this valuable resource. An amendment in 1987 stipulated that Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) be implemented in 43 ecologically compromised areas known as Areas of Concern. The Niagara River was designated as one of these areas by federal and provincial governments and the International Joint Commission, an independent and binational organization that deals with issues concerning the use and quality of boundary waters between Canada and the United States. Although the affected area included parts of both the Canadian and American side of the river, Remedial Action Plans were developed separately in both Canada and the United States. 
\n
\nThe Niagara River (Ontario) RAP is a three-stage process requiring collaboration between numerous government agencies and the public. Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority are the agencies guiding the development and implementation of the Niagara River (Ontario) RAP. The first stage is to determine the severity and causes of the environmental degradation that resulted in the location being designated an Area of Concern; the second stage is to identify and implement actions that will restore and protect the health of the ecosystem; and the third stage is to monitor the area to ensure that the ecosystem’s health has been restored. Stage one of the RAP commenced in January 1989 when a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) was established. This committee was comprised of concerned citizens and representatives from various community groups, associations, industries and municipalities. After several years of consultation, the Niagara River (Ontario) Remedial Action Plan Stage 2 Report was released in 1995. It contained 16 goals and 37 recommendations. Among them was the need for Canadians and Americans to work more collaboratively in order to successfully restore the water quality in the Niagara River. 
\n
\nStage three of the Niagara River (Ontario) RAP is currently ongoing, but it is estimated that it will be completed by 2015. At that point, the Niagara River Area of Concern will be delisted, although monitoring of the area will continue to ensure it remains healthy.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)Same topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207