The Future of the Columbia River Treaty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For 48 years, the United States and Canada have cooperatively shared the management of the Columbia River under the Columbia River Treaty (CRT). The Treaty has provided both parties with significant direct benefits from flood control and power generation and indirect benefits of economic growth in the Pacific Northwest. While not without flaws, the CRT has been hailed as “one of the most successful trans-boundary water treaties based on equitable sharing of downstream benefits”.\nIn 2012, it is time to think about the future of the Columbia River Treaty. Under international law, the U.S. and Canada may agree to modify or terminate the Treaty at any time. The CRT contains no automatic expiration date but either party may unilaterally terminate portions of the Treaty beginning in 2024 by providing notice by 2014. The parties and other stakeholders in the Columbia River Basin have already begun to think about what a future treaty might look like. Should the status quo continue? If not, how should it change? How could the changes be effected in law?\nThe discussion paper – The Future of the Columbia River Treaty – examines the degree of flexibility available under international law and the domestic laws of the United States and Canada to negotiate and implement possible future legal arrangements for the Columbia River Basin
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".