Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most northerly hydro electric systems in Canada is the Snare River hydro system. It produces electricity at 4 plants and supplies electricity to the communities of Rae-Edzo, N'Dilo, Dettah, and Yellowknife, and to the Giant and Con gold mines in the Northwest Territories (NWT). As electricity demand increased in the region, downstream sites to the original 1948 facility were developed at Snare Falls in 1961, Snare Forks in 1975, and Snare Cascades in 1996. This paper presented background on the Snare River project, project mobilization, project construction, and project legacy. Challenges associated with cold region engineering after the construction of the Alaska Highway and the Canol Pipeline in the early 1940s were discussed. These included transportation, structural and petroleum engineering projects. Until the Snare Hydro project, water resource engineering had little opportunity for cold region engineering applications. As a result of the demand for electricity by the gold mines operating around Yellowknife, the need for power was large enough to justify the expense of harnessing the energy from the Yellowknife River in 1938. The mines were the first to build a hydroelectric generating station in the NWT. The federal government recognized the need for a coordinated utility industry in the North and were reluctant to let another mine develop and own another hydro site. Therefore, a crown corporation (Northern Canada Power Commission) was approved by Parliament to oversee the development of the Snare River Hydro Project at the suggestion of the federal industry minister. The Department of Mines and Resources commenced construction of a Hydro Power Plant on the Snare River 150 kilometres northwest of Yellowknife in the spring of 1946. The site was only accessible by air, or tractor train in the winter months. The eight megawatt facility was commissioned in October, 1948. 2 refs., 3 figs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.024 |
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".