Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada does not have an agricultural policy, rather it has agricultural programs. The history of price and income stabilization programs is discussed along with supply management. Programs for the grains and oilseeds sectors have witnessed major changes while supply management has not. Canadian agricultural policy falls under the responsibility of both federal and provincial governments. As a result, farmers in Alberta, for example, receive far greater assistance than farmers in Saskatchewan. Under the new Canadian farm program (CAIS) large payments have been made to Canadian farmers even though many of the farmers who applied for CAIS payments received none. Le Canada ne possède pas de politique agricole, mais plutôt des programmes agricoles. Le présent article porte sur l'histoire du programme de stabilisation du revenu, du programme de stabilisation des prix et de la gestion de l'offre. Contrairement à la gestion de l'offre, les programmes destinés aux secteurs des céréales et des oléagineux ont subi des modifications importantes. La politique agricole canadienne relève des gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux. Par conséquent, les agriculteurs de l'Alberta, par exemple, reçoivent une aide supérieure à celle accordée aux agriculteurs de la Saskatchewan. Dans le cadre du nouveau Programme canadien de stabilisation du revenu agricole (PCSRA), certains producteurs ont reçu des paiements importants alors que de nombreux autres producteurs ayant fait une demande n'ont rien reçu.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.003 |
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".