Transboundary Species: Potential Impact to Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correspondence issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The United States/Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement expired in March 2001. As part of the preparation process for renegotiating the agreement, the United States Trade Representative requested public comment on softwood lumber trade issues between the United States and Canada and on Canadian softwood lumbering practices. The comments received included allegations that Canadian lumbering and forestry practices were affecting animal species with U.S./Canadian ranges that are listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. To consider these comments as well as provide useful information to the U.S. Trade Representative in the renegotiations, the Department of the Interior, with the Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) assistance, prepared a conservation status report on selected species that may be affected by the new agreement. GAO reviewed the FWS' preliminary conclusions and found that, in compiling the information for the Department of the Interior's 2001 conservation report for the U.S. Trade Representative, FWS relied chiefly on previously published material and internal agency documents, such as individual species recovery plans, Federal Register listing information, other administrative records, and public comments received. The report underestimates the extent of cooperation between U.S. and Canadian officials to monitor, protect, and recover transboundary populations of species listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. The report also gives little attention to certain threats to the species, such as predation, residential and commercial development, and human recreational activities, that, according to governmental wildlife officials, are equal or greater threats to transboundary species recovery than, for example, logging and logging roads."
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.004 |
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".