MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388147030 · doi:10.1515/9781773851099

The First Century of the International Joint Commission

2020· book· en· W4388147030 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionJoint (building)Political scienceEngineeringLawCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Joint Commission oversees and protects the shared waters of Canada and the United States. Created by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, it is one of the world's oldest international environmental bodies. A pioneering piece of transborder water governance, the IJC has been integral to the modern Canada–United States relationship. This is the definitive history of the International Joint Commission. Separating myth from reality and uncovering the historical evolution of the IJC from its inception to its present, this collection features an impressive interdisciplinary group of scholars and practitioners. Examining the many aspects of border waters from east to west The First Century of the International Joint Commission traces the three major periods of the IJC, detailing its early focus on water flow, its middle period of growth and increasing politicization, and its modern emphasis on ecosystems. Informative, detailed, and fascinating, The First Century of the International Joint Commission is essential reading for academics, contemporary policy makers, governments, and all those interested in sustainability, climate change, pollution, and resiliency along the Canada–US Border.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0160.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Calgary Press eBooksSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207