EXISTING AND PLANNED INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS: IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH THE CANADIAN NORTHERN CORRIDOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rigorous planning of a multi-modal corridor at a national scale involves identifying current and future infrastructure needs and determining opportunities for co-location of linear infrastructure. Ensuring compatibility of such a major and complex infrastructure expansion with existing and planned projects is necessary to avoid potential redundancies, minimize environmental impact, optimize resource allocation and enable long-term, sustainable economic growth. For this purpose, this paper reviews linear infrastructure projects in Canada’s North and Near-North that could feasibly constitute a segment of the Canadian Northern Corridor (CNC). The CNC concept connects Canada’s Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coasts and Hudson Bay through a linear infrastructure corridor. In accordance with the aims and scope of the CNC, this assessment covers linear infrastructure modes like rail, road, pipeline, electrical transmission and communications infrastructure, and ports as supporting infrastructure and gateways to the rest of the world. The assessment reviews infrastructure projects in two categories: existing and planned. For each infrastructure project reviewed under these categories, geographical characteristics, compatibility with the CNC in terms of purpose and scope, and details about funding and regulatory processes are provided. Corridor development is a lengthy, costly and complex process. Planning stages often involve a risky assessment of possible future changes in economic activity, regional priorities, land use and environmental conditions (like changing needs for climate adaptation strategies). However, there is no universal methodology for the design and development phases of corridors. Determining the regions to be served by the CNC requires a comprehensive investigation of the needs and priorities of the stakeholders and economic potential of the areas to be served. Adopting this basic principle, the assessment in this paper serves as a step towards determining a multi-modal route for a corridor with a northern focus that efficiently and purposefully integrates the existing infrastructure network of Canada. There is also no single rule for determining the level of compatibility of an existing piece of infrastructure with a planned corridor project. Although integrating previously independent sets of infrastructure potentially eliminates redundancies, saves time and resources, and reduces habitat fragmentation, aiming for achieving full integration can also result in inefficient outcomes by creating bottlenecks and delays in the movement of goods and services. Successful integration of infrastructure primarily depends on the design principles and priorities determined and agreed upon by the stakeholders in the planning and design phases of a corridor. In this preliminary assessment, I rely on the following key considerations which ensures widespread benefits for all Canadians, and evaluate the potential compatibility of existing and planned infrastructure projects with the objectives of the CNC concept: a. Improve transportation infrastructure (like road, rail, marine, aviation and commodity pipelines) b. Improve access to utilities (like electricity and broadband infrastructure) c. Improve access to resources The projects included in this paper does not represent an exhaustive list but are chosen based on the potential level of compatibility with the notional route of the CNC. Technical feasibility and engineering challenges should be extensively investigated in future research. Although this paper only discussed a selected set of infrastructure projects, a database of all relevant existing and planned infrastructure projects will be provided as an online resource for interested stakeholders.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".