MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987308615 · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.014

Factors affecting the evolution of manufacturing in Canada: An historical perspective

2006· article· en· W1987308615 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jaydeep Balakrishnan, Janice B. Eliasson, Timothy R.C. Sweet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Operations Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsPetrel Robertson Consulting (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsManufacturingCompetition (biology)BusinessInvestment (military)Government (linguistics)Manufacturing operationsIndustrial organizationMarketingPoliticsEngineeringPolitical scienceManufacturing engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines the factors that influenced developments in industry and manufacturing in Canada from the 17th to the 20th century. Although Canada's abundance of natural resources led to the development of primary industries in the 17th and 18th centuries, the manufacturing industry was not significant until the early 19th century. Four representative manufacturing industries are discussed to illustrate the overall trend in the chronological evolution of Canadian manufacturing in the 19th and 20th centuries. The role and impact of factors such as transportation, electricity, foreign investment, particularly by U.S. entrepreneurs, and government support for industry is reviewed to understand their impact on manufacturing as it has evolved to the present. It appears that these were indeed influential and thus are factors that other countries in a less developed stage of their manufacturing evolution may look to for directions. Our analysis also shows that Canadian manufacturing which began by producing simple items in small volumes due to geographical diversity and the absence of a large market, moved into the mass manufacturing age only in the 20th century. But in the 21st century due to competition from low labour cost countries Canada has moved back to customized manufacturing though in sophisticated goods such as aircraft manufacturing and biotech. While there are bright spots in Canadian manufacturing, recent studies also show that work needs to be done to produce more value added products and ensure Canadian manufacturing competitiveness in the global market place.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Operations ManagementSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207