MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996712413 · doi:10.7202/031032ar

The Fall and Rise of Free Entreprise: State Intervention in Canadian Shipbuilding, 1945-1966

2006· article· en· W1996712413 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael A. Hennessy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShipbuildingIntervention (counseling)CommissionYardGovernment (linguistics)Economic interventionismIndustrial policyState (computer science)European commissionBusinessPolitical scienceEconomyInternational tradeEconomic policyPoliticsEconomicsEconomic growthLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the growing literature on Canadian industrial policy, relatively little attention has been paid to the shipbuilding sector. This paper identifies and explores the distinct phases of government intervention in shipbuilding from 1945 to 1965. With the formation of the Canadian Maritime Commission, intervention took many forms, which reflected contradictory, conflicting, and competing interests. Over this period, intervention ranged from aiding reconversion to sustaining marginal yards for national security reasons. Defence considerations would play the largest role throughout this era. In examining the varied interests reflected in the deliberations of the Maritime Commission and the Departments of Defence Production, Finance, and Industry, this study demonstrates thai defence policy cannot be ignored when assessing industrial policy for this era. At least for shipbuilding, government policy appears to have hampered domestic and international competitiveness.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207