A Look at United States and Canadian Admiralty Law - Necessity for Joint Legislation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UST AS THERE are vehicular codes to govern the movement of motor traffic, so there are admiralty codes to govern the navigation of ships.Admiralty "rules of the road," however, have their origin in a far more distant past than modern day traffic laws.'But ancient origins are no justification for outdated rules-the laws of admiralty must be constantly re-examined in the light of changing conditions.That constant re-examination and, in some instances, revision is necessary can be seen when one considers, for example, the differences between the United States and Canadian admiralty laws and the effect of these differences upon ocean going vessels entering the United States through the St. Lawrence Seaway.The Congress of the United States has defined as follows the jurisdictional limits of the rules of the road applicable to safe navigation on the Great Lakes within the jurisdiction of the United States:... [T]he following rules for preventing collisions shall be followed in the navigation of all public and private vessels of the United States upon the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters as far east as Montreal and in the navigation of all other vessels upon such lakes and waters while within the territorial waters of the United States. 2 The Canadian Shipping Act, Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, spells out the Canadian counterpart of this jurisdictional question:The said regulations to apply and to have force in all navigable waters within Canada or within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada except the waters l An excellent discussion of the historical background of admiralty law is found in GILMORE and BLACK,
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.064 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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".