Contrasting Mid-West United States Wetlands Policy with Western Canadian Watershed Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting in the 1970s, watershed regulations in the United States have been either (1) permits for managing a proposed land used activity, or (2) enforcing standards for controlling a point or non-point source pollutant. In the 1990s, alternatives to the command and control system of wetland policy were generally market-based incentives to encourage a cost-effective means of environmental conservation or subsidized community participation campaigns to preserve the resource. While states and regions have different programs, banking mitigation is the U.S. federal policy for watershed management and wetland preservation. In Canada, socio-political and geographic factors impact the governance and regulation of watersheds more than the United States. For example, watershed laws in Alberta are increasingly similar to the regulatory regimes and risk analysis used in the States. This study is a comparison of watershed management practices and problems in the Mississippi River Valley in the United States to the wetland management ideas and initiatives of Alberta Canada. It is our thesis that the banking mitigation strategies of Illinois and Missouri have demonstrated environmental risks that should be considered by the people and politicians of the newly proposed mitigation initiatives in Alberta.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".