Bibliographic record
Abstract
Searsport is home to the second-busiest industrial port in Maine. Imports include heating oil and road salt and come from as far away as Africa. Situated at the mouth of the Penobscot River and linked to northern Maine and Montreal by rail, Searsport’s Mack Point Marine Intermodal Cargo Terminal (hereinafter “Mack Point”) is a significant international trade hub and source of jobs in Maine’s Midcoast Region. Since 2000, a plan to deepen the harbor around Mack Point has stalled. Supporters of the plan, including business groups, argue that deepening the harbor, or dredging, is necessary to increase and streamline the flow of cargo to the port. Opponents, however, like lobstermen and environmentalists, are concerned about the potential consequences of dumping large amounts of dredged sediment into Penobscot Bay; especially when that sediment may be contaminated by mercury, creosote (a known carcinogen), and other harmful pollutants. After fifteen years, the uncertainty surrounding the dredging of Mack Point has created disharmony in Maine communities and hindered stakeholders’ ability to plan for the future. Prompted by the important environmental and economic issues at stake in the Mack Point dredging project, as well as the absence of finality that does a disservice to both sides in the debate, this Comment explores the regulatory framework in which dredging occurs in coastal New England with an eye toward improving Maine’s dredging laws. As a foundation for later discussion, Part II offers a primer on the dredging process. Part III summarizes federal dredging laws and touches on the disposal of dredged material. Part IV discusses selected dredging laws in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine for comparison purposes. Part V concludes with analysis and recommendations for Maine’s dredging laws.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".