MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1957007940 · doi:10.7202/1030640ar

How Hydro Ontario Went Local: The Creation of Local Districts and the Ontario Central System

2015· article· en· W1957007940 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jack A. Lucas

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsAutonomyFlexibility (engineering)ElectricityPower (physics)Service (business)Local DevelopmentPolitical scienceEconomyPublic administrationGeographyEconomicsRegional scienceEngineeringManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Ontario Hydro was created, its task was to distribute electricity to local hydro commissions across Ontario. By the 1920s, however, it had become a local distributor itself, providing direct service to thousands of customers across the province. This essay examines the two major events that brought Ontario Hydro into local distribution during this period: the creation of the Central Ontario System in 1916 and the Rural Power District in 1920. This essay draws on previously unexplored archival sources to argue that the two processes were quite separate from one another, and that only one – the Rural Power District – left a lasting institutional legacy in Ontario’s electricity sector. Both developments, however, reveal the “flexibility” of local political autonomy in Ontario – the cultural and political limits of appeals to local autonomy in the face of economic risk and opportunity and technological 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 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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.023
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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.

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
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and MedicineSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207