Canadian Agricultural Programs and Paradigms:The Influence of International Trade Agreements and Domestic Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tracing developments over the past two decades with respect to Canadian farm income support, orderly grain marketing, and supply management, this article argues that Canadian agricultural policy has undergone programmatic, but not paradigmatic policy change. International trade agreements, alongside domestic factors like budgetary pressures, have helped to promote programmatic change. However, paradigmatic change in the form of a rejection of the core ideas and instruments of the post Second World War state assistance paradigm has not yet occurred. The article discusses the conditions for paradigmatic change and argues that the state assistance paradigm is likely to prevail until influential decision makers becoming convinced of its failure and judge an alternate paradigm to be politically and economically viable. Un examen des changements survenus sur le plan du soutien du revenu agricole au cours des vingt dernières années, notamment la commercialisation des grains et la gestion de l'offre, indique que la politique agricole canadienne a subi des changements programmatiques et non paradigmatiques. Les accords de commerce internationaux, combinés à des facteurs intérieurs tels que les pressions budgétaires, ont contribuéà la promotion de changements programmatiques. Cependant, le changement paradigmatique sous la forme du rejet des idées et des instruments de base d'aide de l'État après la Seconde Guerre mondiale ne s'est pas encore produit. Le présent article traite des conditions préalables au changement paradigmatique et soutient que le paradigme de l'aide de l'État continuera probablement d'exister jusqu'à ce que des décideurs influents soient convaincus de son échec et estiment qu'un paradigme de rechange pourrait être politiquement et économiquement viable.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".