Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE PERSISTENT ANIMOSITY IN NEWFOUNDLAND towards Quebec over the 1969 Churchill Falls contract is well known.1 That contract is between HydroQuebec and the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation (CFLCo); the former is a Quebec Crown corporation and the latter was a private sector entity at the time (but has been under Newfoundland government majority ownership since 1974). What is involved is the sale by CFLCo of a huge amount of electricity to Hydro-Quebec under increasingly onerous terms until 2041. But this essay is not about those terms.2 Rather, it is about one theory that has been put forward to explain why those terms turned out to be so one-sided. Specifically, there is a general perception in Newfoundland that the federal government failed the province by not intervening to permit the transmission of electricity from Churchill Falls across Quebec to markets elsewhere. This indictment of the federal government has surfaced in a number of forums. In an extensive study, for instance, of the evolution of federal government electricity policy and its relationship to the Churchill Falls negotiations during the 1960s, Jason Churchill concluded: “The Newfoundland government was unable to convince the federal government to invoke relevant sections of the British North America Act (BNA Act) to secure access through Quebec territory.”3 In 2003, Newfoundland’s provincial Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada agreed with that perspective. In its final report, the commission stated:
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 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".