MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7137874502 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2025.2581461

Diplomatic and Technical: The International Joint Commission and the Politics of Infrastructure in the Lower Detroit River 1912–1917

2025· article· en· W7137874502 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramya Swayamprakash

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonial History and Postcolonial Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoint (building)PoliticsCommissionGovernment (linguistics)International relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In October 1912, the Livingstone Channel—a humanmade canal within the Detroit River—was finally inaugurated. However, underneath the seemingly calm waters ran a bedeviling crosscurrent spooking ship captains and ship owners. Even before the channel was complete, both the United States and Canada had referred the matter to the newly formed International Joint Commission (IJC). In the hearings that followed, the Commission heard both sides, communicated with the public and media, and considered design alleviatory interventions without upsetting anyone. The hearings and subsequent action offer new insights to better understand the Commission we have inherited. This article shows how the IJC came to define its organizational niche, its zone of influence, as well as the techno-infrastructural diplomacy within Canada-U.S. bilateral relations. This episode shows that today’s oft-portrayed friendly, “North American” environmental relations are the product of decades of work by the Commission.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicColonial History and Postcolonial StudiesFrench-language works237,207