Review of Lake Diefenbaker Operations 2010-2011 : Centre for Hydrology Final Report to the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of the Lake Diefenbaker operation and hydrometeorological events of 2010-2011 suggests that minimum reservoir levels have been rising over time and were particularly high in the winter and spring of 2010-2011 resulting in a greater risk of high outflow events if predicted inflows were not accurate. Rules and policies for operating Gardiner Dam based on verified information and priority of operations to minimize cumulative risk were not in place to optimize dam operations after several mid winter events restricted outflows from the dam. Unfortunately inflows were underpredicted in 2011 due to underestimation of upstream snowpacks, inability to quantify ungauged inflows from prairie runoff, inadequate available information on upstream and local meteorological conditions, and reliance on statistical forecast procedures based on previous climate conditions. The impact of outflows on downstream areas was difficult to quantify because of an underestimation of outflows from the Coteau Creek hydroelectric station at Gardiner Dam and the lack of sufficient hydrometric stations downstream. Whilst water supply goals for the reservoir were met in the period, and downstream flood extent was cut in half; the acreage duration of flooding between Moon Lake and Saskatoon was not reduced by dam operation and the annual peak flow downstream on the Saskatchewan River was not reduced by dam operation. The overall evaluation of SWA operation of Lake Diefenbaker in light of the operational objectives understood at the time is that SWA forecasting staff did a superb job with the limited tools and resources, complex operating system and unspecified operating rules available to them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".