MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074275330 · doi:10.1016/s1449-4035(04)70040-5

The Role of the Provinces in Canadian Foreign Trade Policy: Multi-Level Governance and Sub-National Interests in the Twenty-First Century

2004· article· en· W2074275330 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher J. Kukucha

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy and Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsBureaucracyPublic administrationCorporate governanceIdeologyJurisdictionPolitical scienceFederalismForeign policyMulti-level governanceConsistency (knowledge bases)Political economySociologyEconomicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Canada has a history of supporting the evolution of trade related multi-level governance structures. In the post-war period these commitments had limited implications for domestic policy space. Over time, however, these governance frameworks began to increasingly focus on areas of provincial jurisdiction. This paper argues that these developments have empowered a range of traditional and non-traditional actors within Canadian provinces. On an institutional basis, this includes engagement by provincial executives, bureaucratic interests, and emerging consultative structures within Canadian federalism. Sectoral interests have also responded by pressuring provincial governments to adopt specific policy positions. In addition, neo-liberal ideational factors are significant although some provincial governments have at times challenged this ideological consistency. Societal considerations, on the other hand, have the least impact provincially. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between national and sub-national interests when evaluating Canada’s foreign trade policy. In the case of Canadian provinces it is clear that institutional, sectoral, and ideational factors are most prominent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy and SocietySame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207