Border Infrastructure Investment Plan: Canada - United States April 2013
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Action Plan, the two countries are to pursue a major new initiative relating to infrastructure proposed and developed by Transport Canada (TC), U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This initiative has two key elements. First, Canada and the U.S. “commit to make significant investments in physical infrastructure at key crossings to relieve congestion and speed the movement of traffic across the border.” The Action Plan listed the following as examples of significant infrastructure upgrades: “customs plaza replacement and redevelopment; additional primary inspection lanes and booths; expanded or new secondary inspection facilities; expanded or new connecting roads, highway interchanges and bridges.” These investments depend upon funding appropriations approved by the Canadian Parliament and the U.S. Congress. Nothing in the Action Plan and in this document is intended to give rise to rights or obligations under domestic or international law; neither the Action Plan nor this document are intended to constitute an international treaty under international law. CBP investments are to be delivered in partnership with the General Services Administration (GSA) which functions as CBP’s ports of entry Service Provider. \n
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it