MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W76421455 · doi:10.36646/mjlr.40.4.great

The Great Lakes as an Environmental Heritage of Humankind: An International Law Perspective

2007· article· en· W76421455 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Dan Tarlock

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Michigan Journal of Law Reform · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionPerspective (graphical)InvocationState (computer science)Political scienceInternational lawEnvironmental lawLawGeographyEnvironmental planningInternational tradeBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1985, the eight Great Lakes states and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec have cooperated to prevent almost all diversions of water from the Great Lakes basin. In 2005, the eight states signed an Agreement to create a tiered system of reviews for diversions and a draft interstate Compact, which creates a binding process to regulate diversions. This cooperation is primarily a state initiative, supported by the federal governments in both countries, which has paid little attention to the international character of the lakes. This Essay argues that there are three major benefits to the region from the incorporation of international environmental law into the anti-diversion regime. First, the recent Compact is an important recognition of the Lakes as a common heritage of human kind. Second, the success of the regime will be aided by the involvement of the International Joint Commission (IJC) in diversion issues because of its broader perspective on Great Lakes issues. Third, international law serves as an additional buffer against the invocation of international and domestic free trade laws to unravel the proposed environmental-navigation protection regime.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Michigan Journal of Law ReformSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207