Report for the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls\n Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report was commissioned by the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the\nMuskrat Falls Project to provide the national and international context in\nwhich the Muskrat Falls Project took place. The Commission asked for the report\nto cover three specific topics of questions: (1) What is the national and\ninternational context of the Muskrat Falls Project with regards to cost overrun\nand schedule overrun? (What are the typical cost and schedule overruns of\nhydro-electric dam projects? How do hydro-electric dams compare to other\ncapital investment projects? How do Canadian projects compare to other\ncountries?), (2) What are the causes and root causes of cost and schedule\noverruns? (3) What are recommendations, based on international experience and\nresearch into capital investment projects, to prevent cost and schedule\noverruns in hydro-electric dam projects and other capital investment projects?\n Keywords: Hydroelectric Dams, Megaprojects, Cost Overrun, Schedule Overrun,\nOptimism Bias, Strategic Misrepresentation, Infrastructure, Capital Investment\nProjects, Canada, Muskrat Falls\n
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".