MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983267747 · doi:10.1016/s1449-4035(07)70104-2

From Black Gold to Blue Gold: Lessons from the Petroleum Trade Regime for an Emerging Water Trade and Investment Regime

2007· article· en· W1983267747 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John N. McDougall

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy and Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodityDeregulationInvestment (military)EconomicsCommodity chainGold rushInternational tradeElectricityBusinessProduction (economics)Scale (ratio)Natural resource economicsMarket economyInternational economicsPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Water resources in Canada are “potential” or “quasi-staples”. That is, the exploitation of water resources has featured many of the aspects of a staples industry such as their large-scale, technologically influenced, rural-based, bulk-commodity characteristics, but lack others, especially a traditional staples export orientation. However, this situation is changing. In the electricity case, deregulation in both Canada and the US markets has resulted in the emergence of a new production regime in Canada, one that is approaching a typical “mature” staples industry, albeit with the new environmental regulations and conditions for participation of a much broader spectrum of “stakeholders” which bears some resemblance to a ‘post-staples” model. The same is true of water resources as a whole where, for almost two decades, one of the most controversial concerns raised by Canadian opponents of free trade with the United States was that it would lead to the large scale export of water from Canada. Should this come to pass, this commodity would become a “staple” and the water industry which would emerge in Canada would move from “potential” to “actual”

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy and SocietySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207