The History behind the Canada-U.S. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries: A Seven-Decade Effort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and the USA share the Great Lakes, and, for most of the region’s history, cross-border collaboration over the fishery was nonexistent, resulting in serious economic and ecological harm. This publication, which covers the late 1800s to 1955, traces the efforts to establish a binational treaty to govern the Great Lakes fishery. We explore the circumstances Great Lakes fishers found themselves in at the dawn of the 20th century, the chaos caused when multiple jurisdictions did not cooperate (called “divided governance”), the political pressures stakeholders exerted to eliminate agreements they disliked and promote agreements they liked, and the scientific community that made biological cases to act and, occasionally, stepped into the political fray. The road to establish a permanent body to ensure collaboration was long and tortuous and included two failed attempts at a treaty, one attempt in 1908 and another attempt in 1946. A third treaty attempt, the 1954 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between the United States and Canada, succeeded, which created the Great Lakes Fishery Commission as a permanent mechanism for bilateral cooperation. By 1954, influential persons could no longer tolerate the governments’ unwillingness to address severe declines in fish stocks and concomitant economic losses, inconsistent science, and the Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus invasion. This publication draws from hearings and debates in the Parliament of Canada and the U.S. Congress, national and international boards of inquiry, previously confidential documents that contain the strategies of those engaged in bilateral negotiations, and the literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".