MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4238175276 · doi:10.2172/823257

Kangley - Echo Lake Transmission Line Project Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2003· report· en· W4238175276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental impact statementWatershedEcho (communications protocol)Statement (logic)Environmental scienceRange (aeronautics)GeographyEnvironmental protectionEngineeringEnvironmental impact assessmentComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is proposing to build a new transmission line to accommodate increasing demand for electricity and address reliability concerns in the Puget Sound area. The Proposed Action would construct a new line that would connect to an existing transmission line near the community of Kangley, and then connect with BPA's existing Echo Lake Substation. The major purpose of this proposal is to improve system reliability in the King County area. An outage on an existing line during times of heavy use, such as during a winter cold snap, could cause voltage instability and a loss of power in the King County area. System planners have projected total system load using normal growth in demand and determined that system instability could develop as early as the winter of 2002-03. Besides meeting this need for system reliability, this project would enhance the United States' delivery of power to Canada as required under the Columbia River Treaty of 1961. BPA described and analyzed transmission route alternatives in a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) released in June 2001. The DEIS identified a preferred alternative that would parallel an existing BPA transmission line through the Cedar River Municipal Watershed. BPA received over 700 comments from landowners, agencies, tribes and special interest groups on the DEIS. Many of the comments suggested BPA re-evaluate the range of alternatives considered and prepare a supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS). After reviewing the comments and refining the cost estimates associated with BPA's preferred alternative, BPA decided to prepare this SDEIS to re-evaluate alternatives not analyzed in detail in the DEIS. The added transmission alternatives, all located outside of the Cedar River Watershed, were initially considered but dropped from detailed analysis. They are identified as Alternatives A, B, C, and D. Alternatives A and C are located to the west of the Cedar River Watershed boundary. Alternatives B and D cross the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests. Under all transmission alternatives, Echo Lake Substation would be expanded about three acres to the east and new equipment to accommodate the new line would be installed. BPA is also considering a Non-Transmission Alternative and the No Action Alternative.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1610.045

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRangeland and Wildlife Management→French-language works237,207→