MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W111055601 · doi:10.29173/alr266

Sacrificing Fish for Power: A Legal History of the Spray Lakes Development

2012· article· en· W111055601 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sarah Nykolaishen, Nigel Bankes

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Resources and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsLegislationFish <Actinopterygii>EnvironmentalismNatural resourcePopulation growthPower (physics)TroutPopulationLawPolitical scienceBusinessEnvironmental planningFisheryEnvironmental ethicsEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article tells the story of how Calgary Power acquired a legal licence to divert and store water in the Spray Lakes Reservoir, how multiple legal instruments, including the National Parks Act, Alberta’s Water Resources Act, and the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement were shaped along the way, as well as details the subsequent efforts that have been made to restore stream flows to the Spray River and rehabilitate its native cutthroat trout population. This article highlights many of the challenges that older hydro-developments pose to aquatic ecosystem health and instream flow needs, while demonstrating that the law can be shaped in interesting ways through the dual pressure of economic growth and environmentalism. This story offers food for thought as Canadian environmental legislation appears poised to undergo significant change.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

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
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicWater Resources and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207