International water sharing: examining the Montana–Alberta dispute in the context of the century-old Boundary Waters Treaty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 set out the terms and conditions by which citizens in Canada and the United States would be permitted to access and use trans-national surface water resources. In 2003, the Governor of Montana claimed that Montanans were not receiving their collective entitlement of the boundary waters that flowed into Alberta and requested the International Joint Commission (IJC) to investigate. After more than eight years of study, meetings, task forces and negotiations, the IJC has successfully cooled emotions but a definitive solution to the dispute has not been found. Although water users in Alberta have been receiving more water than those in Montana, it has been determined that users in both countries have been receiving less water than their legal entitlements. This result has been due more to differences in diversion, conveyance and storage infrastructure on each side of the border than to any inherent unfairness in the treaty itself.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| 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".