MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7139339629

Action PlanDevils Lake, North Dakota

2011· article· W7139339629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2011
Typearticle
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSocioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction planCommissionExecutive committeePlan (archaeology)Action (physics)Executive director
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This action plan was prepared by the Devils Lake Collaborative Working Group (DLCWG) to provide the current status of the 21 actions identified in the December 2010 “Report of the Federal Interagency Devils Lake Working Group” and outline additional revisions and actions to address the changing situation in the basin. The DLCWG was identified as one of the 21 actions within the December 2010 report. The DLCWG represents basin stakeholders and is tasked with developing and recommending direction and actions to the Devils Lake Executive Committee (DLEC), which was also identified in the report. Members of the committee include senior working staff from Federal, tribal, State, local government, the International Joint Commission (IJC) (observer status), Canada (observer status), and NGOs (observer status). This action plan was identified as one of the first products for the DLCWG to prepare for the DLEC. The initial meeting of the DLEC was held on 7 March 2011 in Bismarck, North Dakota. At this meeting, the DLEC designated lead federal and state or tribal agencies for each of the 21 actions. A second meeting was held on 4 April in Bismarck, where the set of action items were modified and clarified. The initial list of actions can be found in the December 2010 report. The initial meeting of the DLCWG was held on 29 March 2011 in Devils Lake. The main purposes of the meeting were to review the 21 action items, discuss the status of these action items, modify, delete or add action items as necessary, and assign individuals to prepare portions of the draft report. A second meeting of the DLCWG was held on 27 April in Devils Lake. As a result of discussions at these meeting and subsequent recommendations from DLCWG members, modifications to the action were made as noted in Table 1. This table also includes a summary of the required federal funding and remarks. The action plan was approved at the June 13, 2011, DLEC meeting subject to revisions which are incorporated into this plan. Additional comments from DLEC members regarding this plan are attached in Appendix A.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2030.031

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.093 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicSocioeconomics of Resources and ConservationFrench-language works237,207