MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7081930076 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/2515_16

Recent case histories for dam decommissioning in Alberta

2025· article· en· W7081930076 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMine closure · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsNuclear decommissioningContext (archaeology)Land reclamationDam removalAbandonment (legal)DemolitionFencingEnvironmental impact assessmentPublic work

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2018 the Government of Alberta (GOA) released the Alberta Dam and Canal Safety Directive (ADCSD), including decommissioning, closure, and abandonment of dams and canals (Part 9) and a requirement that public infrastructure and its possible decommissioning should be evaluated when it either becomes a public safety issue or requires rehabilitation. Three recent dam removal projects are described in this paper, in terms of how they meet the requirements of the directive, with technical details provided on permitting; design; and construction in the context of each project. The first project (Klein Lake Dam) is a former water storage dam, constructed to expand a lake for recreational opportunities, which was removed instead of reconstructed after it experienced overtopping failure. The second project (Billy Goat Dam) is a mine water diversion dam for a mine pit that will be removed after cessation of mining, as part of long-term mine reclamation plans. The third project (Southeast Dyke) is a low consequence dyke for a cooling pond at a thermal generating station with consequences of failure that have decreased over time, due to mining activities modifying the downstream environment. These three projects are in different steps – from the process of design to completion of construction – with Klein Lake Dam removal being completed, Billy Goat Dam permitted but not decommissioned, and Southeast Dyke being in the process of obtaining permits to decommission. Additional perspectives from assessment of fish habitat, revegetation, soil nutrients and soil chemistry are also discussed as applicable to illustrate how environmental science informs dam removal design, supports obtaining regulatory permits for dam removal works, and guides construction planning for dam removal. The application of the ADCSD to dam removal and dam decommissioning projects is presented in this paper, with description of site-specific conditions that lead to selecting the dam removal or dam decommissioning option and discussion on how environmental studies inform design and permitting. The value of detailed environmental evaluations, hydrologic flood routing, assessing downstream impacts on third parties and environmental features, the importance of soil science and vegetation ecology to reservoir bottom revegetation, construction details where applicable, and relationships with regulators will be discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMine closureSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207