To Market, To Market: Innovation, Canada’s Nuclear Industry, and the Case of the Nuclear Battery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atomic Energy Canada Limited pursued the development of a small-scale nuclear reactor intended for use in the North Warning System during the height of the Cold War. This reactor, known as the nuclear battery, was later considered as a submarine power source for the Canadian Submarine Acquisition Program (CASAP). AECL’s approach to the development of the nuclear battery was to form joint-venture partnerships with public- and private-sector companies in order to share design and development costs; however, AECL had both the funding and the in-house technical and scientific expertise to develop the nuclear battery without these partnerships. Further, the pursuit of these partnerships did not lead to success; the nuclear battery was a failed innovation. This study links the preference for joint-venture partnerships at AECL to the neo-liberal approach to innovation that swept through Canadian government and private-sector industries in the 1980s and early 1990s, as it had swept through British and American industries before it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".