Positive impacts of the 2013 update to the Canadian Coast Guard and United States Coast Guard Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan, from a National and Regional Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Coast Guard – United States Coast Guard(CANUS) Joint Marine Contingency Plan (JCP) underwent a major update in 2013and was renewed by both countries. This paper will review changes in the CANUS JCP from a national and regional perspective including the creation of a joint National JCP Committee and exercise program. Successful regional cooperation between the Ninth Coast Guard District and the Canadian Coast Guard Central and Arctic Region has led to recommendations for best practices to the National JCP Committee. The use of an International Coordinating Officer (ICO) position in the CANUS LAK, Great Lakes Region, of the JCP Annex has resulted in increased preparedness to respond to incidents. The ICO position was critical in the recent response of the M/V Argo. The regulatory frameworks of both countries have differences, especially authorities for spill response between the Canadian Coast Guard and the National Energy Board (NEB). These differences will be analyzed for future JCP updates.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".