State Practice in the Management and Allocation of Transboundary Ground Water Resources in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the governance of transboundary groundwater resources in North America. It begins by identifying and reviewing various arrangements over transboundary aquifers between Mexico and the United States , between Canada and the United States, and between the continental states of the United States. Although the arrangements discussed in this article represent diverse geographic and geologic conditions, commonalities in norms and principles can be identified in areas such as cooperation, prior notification of planned activities, sharing of data and information, public participation, and a preference for subsidiarity and local solutions for local issues. This article proposes that many of these commonalitites evidence emerging state practice and should be considered and evaluated as bases for emerging customary international law. Moreover, recent trends suggest a change in the function of regional agreements and their role in the development of international custom as evidenced by the growing importance and effectiveness of local and regional transboundary arrangements that are tailored to local characteristics and circumstances. Significantly, these trends are especially unique in that the majority of the arrangements identified are unofficial pacts without formal endorsement of the respective governments. Additionally, of those arrangements, the vast majority are subnational pacts rather than pacts between national governments. Ultimately, in identifying and characterizing such commonalities and characteristics, as well as the experiences on which they are based, this study aims to offer insight into evolving customary international law as well as suggestions for the development of new arrangements related to the management of transboundary groundwater resources.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".