Challenges, Risks and Successes in the Construction of the Lake St. Martin Emergency Channel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The magnitude of flooding in Manitoba in the spring and summer of 2011 brought an unprecedented challenge to the Province of Manitoba. Using the criteria of feasibility, utility and constructability, several options for managing the flood levels were considered. The construction of the Lake St. Martin Emergency Outlet Channel was chosen as the best option. The requirement to complete construction of the channel prior to winter freeze-up represented a major challenge. With the decision to build being made on July 22nd, only four months were left to complete the final design, contract awards, mobilization, and construction by November 1st. In addition, construction was constrained by project location which was accessible only by boat, barge or helicopter, and was flooded at the time of construction. It was decided that Manitoba would assume the majority of the risk for the project in order to negotiate the best financial rates possible for this time-sensitive and complex project. Provincial representatives met with contractors to negotiate contracts and set rates encompassing as much of the equipment and construction scenarios that could be anticipated. It was also the intent of contract negotiations to maximize local aboriginal involvement in the project. The contractors, MIT and AECOM worked as a team to plan construction and oversee the work. This effort resulted in a project completed on time, well under budget, and with an impressive safety record that was seen as an integral part of the successful flood fighting effort in Manitoba. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201310RT334E.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".