The Columbia River Treaty: the politics and possibilities for change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International watershed basins shared by two or more states cover nearly half the land surface of the earth and often present complex, interconnected management challenges. The Columbia River basin has long been considered a model case of international watershed management. The fiftieth anniversary of the Canada–United States treaty that governs the basin occurred in 2014, which was also the first year either country could give notice to terminate and request to renegotiate. Stakeholders and interested parties with values shut out of the original negotiations have long advocated for fundamental changes in how the river is managed and operated. Meanwhile, those interests who are the primary beneficiaries of the current system want to limit any changes in terms, operations, and distribution of benefits. This article explores the politics of potential treaty renegotiation and focuses on the institutional permanence of the existing system, demands for ecosystem functions in future system operations, and whether transformational change or incremental adaption is the politically likely outcome.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".