Report of the International Joint Commission FINAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly a decade after the revised 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed by Canada and the United States to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, ” the two nations agreed that the worst areas would be given priority attention. Subsequently, 43 such areas were designated as Areas of Concern because they contained contaminated sediment, inadequately treated wastewater, nonpoint source pollution, inland contaminated sites or degraded habitat to a greater degree than the rest of the Great Lakes. Twenty-six of these are solely in the United States, 10 are solely in Canada, and five are binational waterways. Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement directs Canada and the United States, working with state and provincial governments, to develop plans (known as Remedial Action Plans) to restore and protect ecosystem health so that the water is drinkable, beaches are swimmable and fish are safe to eat, among other such beneficial uses. Pursuant to the commitment made in the Commission’s 2002 Eleventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality and the requirements of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the International Joint Commission produced this report to inform the public on how much has been done in restoring beneficial uses in Areas of Concern. The Commission greatly appreciates the cooperation and assistance of the two governments in its preparation.
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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".