Action Plan\nDevils Lake, North Dakota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This action plan was prepared by the Devils Lake Collaborative Working Group (DLCWG) to provide the current status of the 21 actions identified in the December 2010 “Report of the Federal Interagency Devils Lake Working Group” and outline additional revisions and actions to address the changing situation in the basin. The DLCWG was identified as one of the 21 actions within the December 2010 report. The DLCWG represents basin stakeholders and is tasked with developing and recommending direction and actions to the Devils Lake Executive Committee (DLEC), which was also identified in the report. Members of the committee include senior working staff from Federal, tribal, State, local government, the International Joint Commission (IJC) (observer status), Canada (observer status), and NGOs (observer status). This action plan was identified as one of the first products for the DLCWG to prepare for the DLEC. The initial meeting of the DLEC was held on 7 March 2011 in Bismarck, North Dakota. At this meeting, the DLEC designated lead federal and state or tribal agencies for each of the 21 actions. A second meeting was held on 4 April in Bismarck, where the set of action items were modified and clarified. The initial list of actions can be found in the December 2010 report. The initial meeting of the DLCWG was held on 29 March 2011 in Devils Lake. The main purposes of the meeting were to review the 21 action items, discuss the status of these action items, modify, delete or add action items as necessary, and assign individuals to prepare portions of the draft report. A second meeting of the DLCWG was held on 27 April in Devils Lake. As a result of discussions at these meeting and subsequent recommendations from DLCWG members, modifications to the action were made as noted in Table 1. This table also includes a summary of the required federal funding and remarks. The action plan was approved at the June 13, 2011, DLEC meeting subject to revisions which are incorporated into this plan. Additional comments from DLEC members regarding this plan are attached in Appendix A.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".