Effects to Listed Species from Operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the biological assessment (BA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents dated December, 1999 submitted by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) (also referred to as action agencies) regarding operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). The action agencies’ request for formal consultation was received in December, 1999. This document represents the Service’s biological opinion of the effects of the proposed action on two listed fish species: the endangered Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus); and the threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). This biological opinion is based on information provided in the documents noted above, numerous telephone conversations, meetings and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the following Service offices: Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, Spokane; Montana Field Office, Helena; Columbia River Fisheries Program Office, Vancouver; and the Idaho Fishery Resource Office, Orofino.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".