Freshwater Fisheries in Canada: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Resources and Their Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.—Canada is one of the world leaders in hydropower generation due to its vast aquatic resources and long generation history. While hydropower is considered a relatively clean and efficient renewable resource, it is not without its negative effects, and those on fish and fish habitat are generally considered among the most serious. This chapter discusses the history and current state of hydropower generation in Canada, including a breakdown by province of small and large hydropower generation capacity and proportion of total electricity generation provided by hydropower. A brief but comprehensive review is provided of the known effects of Canadian hydropower on fish and fish habitat as well as how those effects are minimized through mitigation strategies. This review is separated into three categories: downstream effects, upstream (reservoir) effects, and fish passage concerns. Resource management strategies are outlined, including how government, industry, and academia are working together to better understand and minimize the negative consequences, fill in research gaps, and meet evolving regulatory requirements. The future of hydropower section covers emerging technologies (e.g., very low head dams, hydrokinetic turbines, new fish passage techniques), key factors driving ongoing development and innovation in the hydropower industry in Canada, and ongoing environmental concerns that will be the focus of upcoming research initiatives. The investment many sectors place in the development and stewardship of hydropower in Canada keeps this country at the forefront of this industry.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".