A River Runs Through It: What States along the Missouri River can Learn about Water Allocation from Conflict in the ACF River Basin. Se. Fed. Power Customers, Inc. v. Geren.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Missouri River -flowing over 2,600 miles from its source in Montana to its mouth in St. LouiS 2 and draining over 500,000 square miles of land in ten states and providences of Canada 3 -is at the center of a dispute between its basin states.Recent droughts and the discovery of threatened species have pitted upper basin states against those in the lower basin as they compete for increased water amounts.Recreational activities in the upper basin, requiring increased reservoir levels, have come at a cost to lower basin states more concerned with navigation and flood control.Despite years of negotiation attempts and lengthy litigation, these states have yet to reach an arrangement that meets the needs of the upper and lower basin.Comparatively, states in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin (hereinafter "ACF Basin") fight over proper water allocation as well.This area, which begins with the Chattahoochee River in northern Georgia, flows south to mark the Georgia-Alabama border, confluences with the 349-mile long Flint River 5 and then flows south to join with the ' Se.Fed.Power Customers, Inc. v. Geren, 514 F.3d 1316 (D.C.Cir. 2008).2 Northwestern Div., U.S.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".