Contemporary Farm Income Support Policy in Canada: The Case of Prairie Agriculture since 1996
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the degree of provincialism, autonomous policy formulation and program implementation, in farm income support in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta after 1995. It finds that of the three prairie provinces only Alberta undertook autonomous program creation. Correspondingly, Alberta bargained for provincial discretion in federal–provincial negotiations, while Manitoba and Saskatchewan insisted that the federal government is to assume primary responsibility for farm income support. The direction that each province took in regards to program implementation and in federal–provincial negotiations stemmed to a considerable extent from the policy‐making structures the provinces created in order to engage their farm communities in policy development. In Alberta additional factors were the strong influence of rural representatives in its government and its rich public purse. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan the comparatively small government budgets and the governments' desire not to run large budget deficits were other relevant factors. Le présent article examine le degré de provincialisme, l'élaboration de politiques et la mise en place de programmes autonomes ainsi que le soutien du revenu agricole au Manitoba, en Saskatchewan et en Alberta depuis 1995. Nos résultats ont indiqué que, des trois provinces des Prairies, seule l'Alberta a procédéà la création de programmes autonomes. L'Alberta a demandé un pouvoir discrétionnaire dans les négociations fédérales‐provinciales, tandis que le Manitoba et la Saskatchewan ont insisté pour que le gouvernement fédéral assume la responsabilité principale du soutien du revenu agricole. L'orientation des provinces concernant la mise en place de programmes et les négociations fédérales‐provinciales provenait, en très grande partie, des structures d'élaboration des politiques qu'elles ont mises en place en vue de favoriser la participation de leurs collectivités agricoles au processus d'élaboration des politiques. En Alberta, la forte influence des représentants des collectivités rurales au sein du gouvernement et l'importance des fonds publics ont constitué d'autres facteurs. Au Manitoba et en Saskatchewan, des budgets gouvernementaux restreints et le souhait de ne pas enregistrer de déficits budgétaires importants ont constitué d'autres facteurs pertinents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".