Deep Geothermal Heating Potential for the Communities of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We summarize the feasibility of using geothermal energy from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) to support communities with populations >3000 people, including those in northeastern British Columbia, southwestern part of Northwest Territories (NWT), southern Saskatchewan, and southeastern Manitoba, along with previously studied communities in Alberta. The geothermal energy potential of the WCSB is largely determined by the basin’s geometry; the sediments start at 0 m thickness adjacent to the Canadian shield in the east and thicken to >6 km to the west, and over 3 km in the Williston sub-basin to the south. Direct heat use is most promising in the western and southern parts of the WCSB where sediment thickness exceeds 2–3 km. Geothermal potential is also dependent on the local geothermal gradient. Aquifers suitable for heating systems occur in western-northwestern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia, and southwestern Saskatchewan. Electrical power production is limited to the deepest parts of the WCSB, where aquifers >120 °C and fluid production rates >80 kg/s occur (southwestern Northwest Territories, northwestern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia, and southeastern Saskatchewan. For the western regions with the thickest sediments, the foreland basin east of the Rocky Mountains, estimates indicate that geothermal power up to 2 MWel. (electrical), and up to 10 times higher for heating in MWth. (thermal), are possible.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it