MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025740321 · doi:10.7202/042468ar

Les tribulations judiciares de la mise en valeur hydroélectrique de la rivière Churchill

2005· article· en· W2025740321 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
André E. Gadbois

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationSupreme courtCorporationPower (physics)LawEconomic JusticeDeclarationGloryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Power Contract signed in 1969 between Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited and Hydro-Québec was the result of protracted negotiations between the parties which lasted six years. It became the cornerstone of a complex financial arrangement to secure a loan which was at the time the largest private placement effected in the United States of America to provide the funds required for the construction of the Churchill Falls Plant terminated in 1976 at a cost of approximately a billion dollars. This long term contract which had led Premier Smallwood to exclaim : « Glory Hallelujah » when he had heard that the deal had been agreed upon started to be looked at in much a different light by Newfoundland following the rise in the cost of energy resulting from the increases in the price of oil demanded by OPEC. It became the nub of several Court cases instituted in the Newfoundland and Québec Courts. This article is in substance the text of a conference given by the author to the lawyers and notaries of the Ministry of Justice of Québec during the Fall of 1981. It outlines the historical events which led to the negotiations and the signing of a Letter of Intent in 1966 followed by the Power Contract in 1969 and details the events leading to the institution in September 1976 of an action before the Supreme Court of Newfoundland by the Attorney General of that province against CFLCo and Hydro-Québec for a declaration that 800 megawatts of power from Churchill Falls may be recalled, to the institution by Hydro-Québec of a declaratory action in the Québec Courts against CFLCo and the other interested parties, including the Attorney General of Newfoundland, to have certain clauses of the Power Contract interpreted and finally to the adoption in 1980 by the Newfoundland Legislature of The Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act and its reference to the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland to rule on its constitutional validity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.006

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
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
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207