MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7054684295

Balancing Economic Growth and Environmental Conservation: The Dixie Valley Geothermal Plant and the Endangered Dixie Toad

2025· article· en· W7054684295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholar Works (Boise State University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMagneto-Optical Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeothermal gradientLand useIndigenousSustainabilitySustainable developmentEnvironmental impact statementLocal economic developmentLocal community
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report will look at the Dixie Valley Nevada geothermal plant and how it impacts the Dixie toad, the surrounding environment, local community members, and the local indigenous tribes in the area. Ormat, a Canadian mining company, has proposed significant economic and development growth at one of Nevada's hottest geothermal sources in Dixie Valley. We will look at socioeconomic factors such as where the geothermal site is located compared to indigenous land and local towns and communities. We will also examine local government, private sectors, and local organizations and their responses to the Ormat's plan to open the Geothermal site. Other environmental aspects discussed in the paper will be public and private land and the environmental impact statement from Nepa documents produced by the Bureau of Land Management. I will incorporate how the geothermal plant has impacted the ecosystems and landscapes of the Dixie Valley toad. The Timbisha Shoshone and Southern Paiute Tribes and the Center for Biological Diversity have filed a lawsuit against Ormat due to the risks posed by sustainable development and the Dixie Valley toad. Lastly, our research will look at the economic and working opportunities for people working at the Geothermal site and how this may influence policy decision making.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.143
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholar Works (Boise State University)Same topicMagneto-Optical Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207