TINKER, TORY, WOBBLER, WHY? The Political Economy of Electricity Restructuring in Ontario, 1995-2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario Tories' 42-year hegemony in government (1943-1985) was wrought through clever policies which often utilized Crown institutions to promote prosperity or to oblige or mollify vying interests.Ousted in 1985, though, they used their time in opposition to revise the Tory doctrine.In the 1995 election, the Tories emerged a tougher, more truculent group quite unlike their predecessors.Campaigning on their Common Sense Revolution (CSR) platform, they promised to eliminate red tape and vowed to obliterate all ostensible economic barriers which were impeding commerce in the province.In the CSR, the Tories identified Ontario Hydro (OH), the province's lauded publicly-owned power monopoly, as a troublesome and inefficient Crown entity which required fundamental reform.Portions of OH, they hinted, would likely be sold.Once elected, the Tories worked hurriedly to demolish OH and destroy public power in Ontario.For nearly 100 years, OH proved a pivotal component within the province's political economy for its provision of affordable, reliable power and its function as a policy tool to incite and direct development.A Tory government fought to instigate public power in the early 1900s and, in the late 1900s, a Tory government was fighting vigorously to rescind it.Why would they now renounce Crown power?It is the intent of this thesis to elucidate the Tory government's involvement in the transformation of Ontario's electricity industry from 1995 to 2003.Distinguishing electricity as a special, strategic staple, this thesis uses a pro-state, pro-staples industry political economy approach to discern how and why the Tory government sought to restructure the electricity sector.Essentially, it posits that the onslaught of neoliberalism,
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".