Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, Canadian and American historiography on hydroelectric development has focused on urban/industrial conditions or the effects of such development on First Nations.In many of these studies, the metaphor used to conceptualize the process of development connotes images of conquest and control.Examining hydroelectric development, as it occurred in northeastern Ontario, sheds a new and different light on the history of technology and development in Canada.The northeastern Ontario hydroelectric system largely developed over a period of fifty years through a process of interaction between technology and the environment, Native and non-Native relations, metropolitan business and political interests and northern natural resources.Once Aboriginal rights and environmental obstacles were removed through treaty negotiations and technical innovations, early hydroelectric development took place under private auspices by individual entrepreneurs such as Frank Cochrane or by big concerns such as Nesbitt Thomson, operating out of Montreal.Their activities, for the most part, established a series of independent generating stations serving specific customers in northeastern Ontario, with some interconnection with Quebec.After 1944, with the entry of the public power system, now known as Ontario Hydro, into northeastern Ontario, and the elimination of Nesbitt Thomson and other private developers, the amalgamation of the northeastern Ontario system into the southern Ontario system began in earnest.Amalgamation resulted from the interweaving of various factors not the least of which was continued drought in the northeast rendering the system incapable of supplying the region's power needs.vii
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.348 | 0.136 |
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".