The 1999 Pacific Salmon Agreement: An Essay in Honor of Ted L. McDorman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1999 an agreement was concluded between Canada and the United States on amendments to the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty which brought to an end a period of prolonged dispute and hostility over the management of salmon by the two countries and paved the way for a period of amicable relations on the issue that has lasted to this day. The negotiation of the agreement and the outcome were marked by two important characteristics: The negotiating process deviated from traditional state-to-state negotiations, and the ultimate agreement expressed the obligations of the parties not in simple verbal form but rather as the outcome of complex formulae designed to determine abundance and the sharing consequences. The key to the negotiation was fisheries scientists agreeing on the appropriate formula. This article seeks to reflect on two aspects of the negotiation of the 1999 agreement identified by Ted McDorman: first, the process as a mechanism for negotiating international agreements; and second, the broader implications of the “scientific complexity” of the agreement—the integration of law, science, and technology.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".