Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is interest in renewable energy, current energy resources in the Canadian North (i.e. the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut, with a focus on mid to high latitudes of the territories) are mainly non-renewable. The Canadian North struggles to become renewable because of the remoteness of communities and the harsh climate. There are some current renewable energy projects, though most are concentrated in the southern half of the territories. Current and ongoing renewable energy projects include: a solar-diesel hybrid project in the hamlet of Kugluktuk; a biomass pilot project in Fort McPherson, which has led to proposed biomass projects in Inuvik and other northern communities; and the wind turbine project in Haeckel Hills, with new technology turbines. With each successful project, continued research, and the lowering costs of technology due to global demand, the Canadian North steps closer to a renewable future. Along with the environmental impacts a transition from non-renewable to renewable energy resources will bring, renewable energy projects can be a step towards reconciliation and Indigenous energy sovereignty. Although technology and infrastructure will need to continue to advance and become more cost-efficient, renewable energy projects in the Canadian North have great potential to impact the environment and the communities which they will serve.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".