MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6980622047

Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review: Phase 1 Technical Studies

2015· other· en· W6980622047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyNoticeFlood controlFlood mythControl (management)Arms controlPlan (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1964, the Columbia River Treaty has provided significant benefits to the United States and Canada through coordinated river management by the two countries. It remains the standard against which other international water coordination agreements around the world are compared. When the Treaty was negotiated, its goals were to provide significant flood control and power generation benefits to both countries. However, the Treaty contains two provisions that may significantly change these benefits as early as the year 2024. First, in 2024 the 60 years of purchased flood control space in Canadian Treaty projects expires. Instead of a coordinated and managed plan to regulate both Canadian and U.S. projects for flood control, the Treaty calls for a shift to a Canadian operation under which the United States can call upon Canada for flood control assistance. The United States can request this “called upon” assistance as needed but only to the extent necessary to meet forecast flood control needs in the United States that cannot adequately be met by U.S. projects. When called upon is requested, the United States will then have to pay Canada for its operational costs and any economic losses resulting from the called upon flood control operation. Second, while the Treaty has no specified end date, it does allow either Canada or the United States the option to terminate most of the provisions of the Treaty on or after Sept. 16, 2024, with a minimum of 10 years advance written notice. Thus, the year 2024 is the first year a notice of termination would take effect assuming written notice of termination is given by the Canadian or U.S. governments by 2014. Unless the Treaty is terminated or the federal governments elect to modify the Treaty, its provisions continue indefinitely, except for the changes in flood control discussed above. Given the significance of both of these provisions, it is important that the parties to the Treaty understand the implications for post-2024 Treaty planning and Columbia River operations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration, the agencies that implement the Treaty in the United States on behalf of the U.S. Entity (see Treaty Governance sidebar), are conducting a multi-year effort to understand these implications. This effort is called the 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.007

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)→Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→