MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774248921 · doi:10.2749/222137810796063328

Maximizing Waters of the Niagara River for Power Generation: Challenges Constructing the Niagara Tunnel Intake Approach

2010· article· en· W2774248921 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward Li, Rick Everdell

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydroelectricityElectricity generationHydrology (agriculture)Power stationEnvironmental scienceWater resource managementEngineeringPower (physics)Geotechnical engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The Niagara River, forming part of the boundary between Canada and the United States, carries water averaging 6,000 m3 per second and drops about 100 m along its route from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario. Over half of the drop occurs at the world famous Niagara Falls. Since the late 19th century, power plants have been developed on both sides of the river to tap into this valuable natural resource. Due to progressive retirement of the century old inefficient hydro stations adjacent to the Falls, and Ontario Government initiatives to close remaining coal-fired generating stations, Ontario Power Generation Inc. decided in 2004 to proceed with the construction of the CAD$1.6 billion Niagara Tunnel Project to boost average annual generation at the existing Sir Adam Beck hydroelectric stations by 1.6 billion kilowatt-hours. One major challenge is the design and construction of the intake approach located in the 2 km wide upper Niagara River to direct water into the 12.7 m diameter tunnel, as outlined in this paper.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207