MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314997638 · doi:10.1061/40792(173)497

Agreements and Questions on Water Apportionment in the St. Mary and Milk Rivers

2005· article· en· W2314997638 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Bourget, Murray Clamen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApportionmentOrder (exchange)Political scienceBusinessLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Joint Commission (IJC) was established under the Boundary Waters Treat of 1909 to help Canada and the United States prevent and resolve disputes over the use of the waters they share. Article VI of the Boundary Waters Treaty provides that the measurement and apportionment of water from the St. Mary and Milk Rivers be made by Accredited Officers, one from each country, under the direction of the IJC. In 1921, the IJC issued an Order directing how the measurement and apportionment of these waters would take place. In 2003, the IJC received a letter from the State of Montana requesting that the IJC review its 1921 Order. The IJC also received letters from the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan that were supportive of the existing Order. It held informal public consultation meetings in 2004 to receive further information. The IJC is considering the information it has received to decide how best to proceed on all of the matters that have been raised in light of its responsibilities under the Treaty regarding the St. Mary and Milk Rivers. This paper will describe existing agreements, questions raised to the IJC, and the IJC's actions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0280.021
Scholarly communication0.0190.009
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0260.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207