Ontario’s Electrical Future: Global Environmental Limits, Systems Thinking, and Electrical Power Planning in Ontario, 1974-1983
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the mid-1970s, the Royal Commission on Electrical Power Planning (RCEPP) was ordered by the government of Ontario to review Ontario Hydro’s ambitious expansion plans. Historians have often considered the RCEPP an interesting but ineffective commission as changing economic factors, rather than the Commissions’ recommendations for slower growth, eventually slowed Hydro’s momentum in the early 1980s. This paper explores the Commission as an important venue for energy debate and as a means of facilitating research from public interest groups, including Energy Probe, in the late 1970s. From this debate the Commission negotiated ideas of “soft energy paths”, global resource limits, and cybernetic system thinking into a set of policy recommendations for democratic, systems-based electrical power planning. I argue that the tension between centralized control and local action found in the Commission’s systems approach to planning illustrates the difficulty of collective, long-term, and expert mediated, globalist planning in a period once thought of as a “dawning age of energy conservation.”
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".