On Living Together in North America: Canada, the United States and International Environmental Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If it works, don't fix it."This excellent advice no longer applies to the mechanisms used in resolving environmental disputes between Canada and the United States.Those mechanisms no longer work.They need to be "fixed."This paper contends that: (1) Canadian-U.S. environmental problems are currently resolved on an ad hoc basis; (2) the consequences of continuing this ad hoc approach are not attractive; (3) there are alternative ways to conduct Canadian-U.S. environmental relations; it is feasible (4) to choose an alternative approach and (5) to implement it.I. THE PROBLEM: THE AD Hoc APPROACH Canada's relationship with the United States, from the late eighteenth and continuing into the nineteenth centuries, was marred by intermittent war and Canadian fear of annexation.'During the first three quarters of the twentieth century the relationship changed to one of close friendship and cooperation.Until recently this mutual respect had endured despite Canadian resentment of the elephant-and-mouse relationship resulting from the great disparity in the sizes of the two countries' populations, and Canadian concerns over preservation of its economic self-determination and separate identity.In the 1970's, however, a new factor entered the relationship: trans-01982 by
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".