The Hague Line In The Gulf Of Maine: Impetus Or Impediment To Ecosystemic Regime Building?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1984, a Chamber of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), at the behest of the United States and Canada, delineated a maritime boundary between the two nations partitioning the Gulf of Maine. In doing so, the Court did what Solomon would have counseled against, slicing a living system in two. Twenty-five years after the decision, with a wealth of new information about the status, trends, and challenges of the Gulf of Maine ecosystem, a simple question arises: does the Hague Line facilitate or frustrate ecosystemic regime building? This paper examines how, if at all, the ICJ’s boundary line has played a role in efforts to engage in ecosystem management in the Gulf of Maine. In doing so, it sets the stage for more detailed presentations on bilateral efforts to manage and maintain ecological components and services that the ecosystem provides.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".