An Update on Regulatory Change in the Canadian Grain Handling and Transportation Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the latest process of policy change in the Canadian grain handling and transportation industry. The first part of the paper focuses on how the issue of market power in grain transportation and the subsequent lack of accountability for agricultural shippers were addressed in the initial Estey/Kroeger reviews. Considering the recently published government report on Canadian transportation regulation, the latter part of the paper briefly describes a set of regulatory models for the rail industry and their potential applicability to Canada. Les auteurs analysent les plus récents changements apportés aux politiques qui régissent la manutention et le transport du grain au Canada. Dans la première partie de leur article, ils expliquent comment les études initiales d'Estey/Kroeger abordaient l'emprise des transporteurs sur le marché et le peu de comptes qu'ils rendaient aux expéditeurs de grain. Dans la seconde, ils décrivent brièvement plusieurs modèles concernant la réglementation de l'industrie ferroviaire et la possibilité de leur application au Canada à la lumière du rapport sur la réglementation des transports récemment rendu public par le gouvernement.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".