Politics and the Federal Principle in Canada: Newfoundland Offshore Oil Development and the Quest for Political Stability and Economic Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The maintenance of Canadian federalism, and Canada itself, depends on workable relationships between its constituent parts that are able to secure political agreement through accommodation. This argument is developed by examining the dispute between Newfoundland and Ottawa over the control of offshore oil and gas from the late 1950s to 1985, which also became a subtext for the pursuit of economic security, justice, and equality for the province. Energy policy, including the offshore, was often a key issue in the fractious intergovernmental relations in Canada in this period, and this article argues for the inclusion of political actors as an important force in shaping politics and political decisions. While it does not ignore partisan divisions and issues of constitutionalism, the article makes the case that political stability in Canada also depends on relationships. As such, the article offers a unique opportunity to reframe our understanding of interstate federalism and redirect the discussion of politics and federalism away from constitutionalism and judicial review to the role of politicians and personal relations in federal-provincial governance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".