Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dam Safety Guidelines published in 2007 by the Canadian Dam Association(CDA) pro-vide limited guidance for owners and consultants to effectively carry out Dam Safety Reviews(DSR).Practices vary widely across Canada, so the CDA has formed a working group to develop material to sup-plement the Dam Safety Guidelines. It is expected that a Technical Bulletin on Dam Safety Reviews willbe published and that continuing education materials will be developed for the CDA membership. Thispaper presents the concept developed by the working group for further discussion and input, and at thesame time outlines current practices related to Dam Safety Reviews in Canada.This paper draws on a number of sources in addition to the Dam Safety Guidelines: many individual CDAmembers, through sessions at both the 2011 and 2012 annual conferences; the expertise of the Dam Safe-ty Review Working Group of CDA; and input from a working group of the Association of Professional En-gineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia(APEGBC) that is developing professional practice guide-lines for legislated Dam Safety Reviews.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".