Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is proposing to designate the Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary to recognize the national significance of the area’s historical, archaeological, and cultural resources and to manage this special place as part of the National Marine Sanctuary System. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 USC 4321 et seq.) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA, 16 USC 1434), NOAA has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) that considers three alternatives for the proposed national marine sanctuary. In this final EIS, NOAA uses criteria and evaluation standards under the regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508 (1978)) and the NOAA implementing procedures for NEPA (NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A) to evaluate the environmental consequences of each alternative. This document also serves as a resource assessment that details the present and future uses of the areas identified for potential national marine sanctuary designation, and it includes a proposed management plan that describes the proposed goals, objectives, and strategies for managing the proposed sanctuary. No significant adverse impacts to biological and physical resources, cultural and historic resources, marine area use, recreation, or socioeconomics are expected under any alternative. Long-term beneficial impacts are anticipated if the proposed action is implemented.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
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".