Shoreline erosion in the St. Lawrence River : should navigation law be adapted?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Protecting coastal territory from erosion, navigation, and shoreline occupation involves several challenges, not the least of which are the population density along the St. Lawrence and the seaway’s importance. Climate change also adds to the complexity of the situation, since, on the one hand, projections indicate an expected rise in sea levels and, on the other, Canadian and Quebec policies favour the development of the maritime sector to transport goods because of its carbon footprint, which is ten times smaller than that of land transport (Ministère des Transports du Québec, 2021). Several regulatory measures have already been adopted by the governments of Quebec and Canada, as well as by riverside municipalities, to reduce coastal erosion, including preventive measures related to land use and defensive measures such as the construction of protective dykes (Choquette et al., 2019). However, while the Quebec government and municipalities can act to protect shorelines, they cannot intervene in navigation, to counter its coastal impacts, nor install protective structures in the St. Lawrence, since these areas of jurisdiction fall exclusively within the purview of the federal government under constitutional law. Moreover, current litigation against the Government of Canada for damage caused by marine traffic to shores in the municipalities of Varennes, Verchères, and Contrecoeur is a reminder of the importance of concerted action in environmental matters, despite the federal government's progressive disengagement from the St. Lawrence ship channel (Class Action of 2021). Indeed, at least from the 1950s until the federal shoreline protection program was abolished in 1997, Canada contributed financially to erosion protection work required for navigation in the channel. Regardless of the courts’ final verdict, compensating riparian populations and doing protective works in areas most prone to erosion will not, on their own, encourage the establishment of responsible navigation based on integrated water management nor the sustainable development of the maritime industry: it would merely be tantamount to mitigating part of the consequences, economic or otherwise, of one use. [...]"
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".