Management of Distributive Conflicts Impeding Expansion of Interprovincial Hydroelectricity Transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conflicts over distributive effects are a perennial feature of policy-making. The purpose of this essay is to investigate how such distributive conflicts unfold in the context of interprovincial hydroelectricity transmission. Through analysis of two Eastern Canada agreements on interprovincial transmission, plus a related third case, the authors present three major findings. First, the relative distribution of associated impacts—material, non-material, and environmental—is important and often presents a significant barrier to interprovincial agreement. Second, the authors find the distribution of non-material impacts, related to both perceptions of fairness and provincial identity, is perhaps as significant as distribution of financial cost and benefit. Third, the authors find that weak intergovernmental institutions in Canada and ad hoc interventions by the federal government further compound the challenge. The authors argue that future efforts to expand hydro transmission across provincial boundaries are needed to address climate change, but to succeed they must address the challenge of all three types of distributive effects and be supported by consistent federal government leadership.
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 | 0.001 | 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".