Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a flurry of activity in the Ontario electricity sector over the last 2 years as the government continued to work at averting a major crisis of supply in Canada's most populous province. As stated by the Ministry of Energy in 2004, 'Ontario needs to refurbish, rebuild, replace or conserve 25,000 megawatts of generating capacity by the year 2020 to meet growing demand while replacing its polluting coal-fired generating plants. That represents 80 per cent of Ontario's current generating capacity and would require an investment of $25 to $40 billion.' Action has been taken. The government has completed a restructuring of the electricity market with new legislation and has undertaken a number of major procurement initiatives to enable the system to operate until about 2015. These include contracts for significant wind generation and other renewables supply, new gas generation, conservation and demand management and the refurbishment of idled nuclear units. The Ontario Power Authority as now issued it 'Supply Mix Advice' to address the needs of the province for the long term (20 years). The recommendations would 'increase the share of renewable sources in Ontario's supply mix, maintain the share of nuclear generation, and replace coal by increasing the share of gas-fired generation and renewable resources.' It clearly recognizes the importance of nuclear power as a clean and economic option to meet the ongoing base load requirements and states that the nuclear share can be achieved through 'refurbishing existing units, rebuilding on existing sites and undertaking 'new build' plants'. This paper will examine government's plan to maintain the share of nuclear power, and address the important issues required to make decisions on future refurbishments and new build.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.010 |
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".