The Seaweed Rebellion: Federal-State/Provincial Conflicts over Offshore Energy Development in the United States, Canada, and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a great deal of conflict in federal systems between central and peripheral governments regarding jurisdiction over the continental shelf, both within and outside of the territorial sea. The focus of this conflict has been control over valuable offshore petroleum resources. This conflict, which is known as the Seaweed Rebellion,' has occurred in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The Seaweed Rebellion has taken place in both the political and judicial arenas. The first battle of the rebellion, known as the tidelands controversy,' dealt with whether the federal or state/provincial governments had jurisdiction over continental shelf lands. When political negotiations failed to resolve the controversies, litigation ensued. Courts in the United States, Canada, and Australia, citing each other's precedents with approval, chose to view the conflict from an international law perspective. These courts have determined that state/provincial jurisdiction ends at the low-water mark. The federal governments, as external sovereigns, established federal jurisdiction over the continental shelf when such jurisdiction became recognized under international law. The decisions resulting from the tidelands controversy set the stage for subsequent battles in the Seaweed Rebellion. The states/provinces returned to the political arena to mitigate the adverse effects of the judicial decisions. The states/provinces were more successful in the political arena. Nevertheless, subsequent political settlements, except in Canada, did not end the Rebellion: New judicial and political challenges occurred in the United States and Australia regarding control over and revenues derived from offshore energy development. Federalstate conflicts will continue until the states are given greater administrative control over, and a share of the revenues derived from, offshore energy development.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".