The authors gratefully acknowledge the relevant contributions of many colleagues at BC Hydro, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Columbia River Treaty- an example of effective cross-border river regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With over 200 rivers around the world crossing international boundaries, internationally accepted treaties and agreements form the main framework for cross-border river development and operations. The Columbia River basin, in western North America, provides a significant example of effective cross-border river regulation. The river system is the fourth largest in North America but is called the “most powerful ” river system on the continent, with an installed hydroelectric generating capacity of about 35,000 MW. The river originates in Canada and flows about 2,000 km to the Pacific Ocean in the United States. The river is operated under a treaty signed by the two countries in 1961, 13 years after a severe flood on the river that caused much damage in both countries. It was recognized that additional upstream storage regulation was needed to prevent similar flooding and that it would also help to improve power production at hydro plants in both countries. The Columbia River Treaty (CRT) is then an important planning and operations agreement to maximize benefits (multiple water uses) from the river for both countries. Under the CRT, Canada and US built storage regulation dams and agreed to operate the storage behind these dams in a coordinated manner to optimize for flood control and power needs. The objective of this work is to describe and analyze the CRT and to discuss the increasing public awareness of social and environmental issues in both countries, which has
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.028 |
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".