MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alberta's and Ontario's liquor boards: Why such divergent outcomes?

2010· article· en· W1772899837 on OpenAlexaffabout
Malcolm G. Bird

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsControl (management)New institutionalismGovernment (linguistics)PreferenceBusinessPublic administrationPolitical scienceEconomicsManagementLawMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provinces of Alberta and Ontario have chosen very different methods to distribute alcoholic beverages: Alberta privatized the Alberta Liquor Control Board (ALCB) in 1993 and established a private market to sell beverage alcohol, while Ontario, in stark contrast, opted to retain and expand the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). This article examines the reasons for the divergent policy choices made by Ralph Klein and Mike Harris' Conservative governments in each province. The article draws on John Kingdon's “multiple streams decision-making model,” to examine the mindsets of the key decision-makers, as well as “historical institutionalism,” to organize the pertinent structural, historical and institutional variables that shaped the milieu in which decision-makers acted. Unique, province-specific political cultures, histories, institutional configurations (including the relative influence of a number of powerful actors), as well as the fact that the two liquor control boards were on opposing trajectories towards their ultimate fates, help to explain the different decisions made by each government. Endogenous preference construction in this sector, furthermore, implies that each system is able to satisfy all relevant stakeholders, including consumers.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicWine Industry and TourismFrench-language works237,207