Draft Action Agenda Comments Federal Agencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Draft 2020 Action Agenda for Puget Sound. This is a very comprehensive document with significant and achievable actions in each of the priority areas. Many of the priority areas identified in the Draft Action Agenda are of course priorities for Environment Canada and other agencies north of the border. Given that the Puget Sound and Georgia Basin share a common airshed, common watersheds, a common home for migratory birds and fish, and common urban growth pressures, we recognize the importance of continued transboundary collaboration in addressing our shared challenges. To this end, we are pleased to see that one of the actions under Priority D is to “work cooperatively with Canada on management and scientific investigations to increase collaborative problem solving and information sharing ” (D.3.8). A good example of this collaboration is the Joint Statement of Cooperation on the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound Ecosystem, signed in 2000 by Environment Canada and the US Environmental Protection Agency (Region 10). We are also encouraged by the efforts to engage other “partners ” (cities, state agencies, Puget Sound tribes, etc.) in implementing Action Agenda priorities and look forward to exploring opportunities to share information and lessons learned with agencies and groups on this side of
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 | 0.036 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.247 | 0.124 |
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".