Collaborative Approaches Leading to Improved Outflow Management of the Great Lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the twentieth century, the levels of the Great Lakes have been modified by outflow management from Lakes Superior and Ontario. Recent studies have been undertaken to improve this management engaging stakeholders to help identify refinements to not only consider existing interests like commercial navigation and hydropower, but also interests new to the management process: recreational boating and ecosystems. The International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study which was completed in May 2006, proposed alternatives to the regulation plan for Lake Ontario, Plan 1958-D, which were developed using shared vision planning principles and techniques. The on-going International Upper Great Lakes Study, scheduled for completion in the Spring of 2012 that will identify alternatives to the present regulation plan for Lake Superior, Plan 1977-A, is also applying shared vision planning to arrive at alternatives. This paper describes the collaborative approaches used in these two case studies pointing out their similarities and differences which can serve as a guide for other large-scale studies and projects.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".