In America's National Interest — Canadian Oil: A Comparison of Civil, Political, and Economic Freedoms in Oil-Producing Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attempting to restrict American imports of Canadian oil is a mistake that ignores both the reality of U.S. dependence on imported oil, as well as the only major alternative sources of such oil — repressive governments that restrict civil, political, and economic freedoms.The study points out that Canada now provides more oil to America than all the Persian Gulf countries combined, even though America imports 5.5 million more barrels of oil daily than it did in 1973. Also, in 2009, the U.S. relied on Persian Gulf countries for 14.4% of its oil imports, down from 24.5% of all U.S. oil imports in 1979. In contrast, Canada supplied the United States with 21.2% of its oil imports in 2009, an increase from the 6.4% Canada supplied in 1979.In addition to the reality of American oil demand and imports, this report measures how major oil-producing jurisdictions around the world, defined as those that produce more than 250,000 barrels of oil daily, perform on 17 comparisons of civil, political, and economic freedoms. The comparison includes eight measurements specific to women’s freedoms. A total of 38 countries, from five continents, are compared. For example, with the exception of Norway, Canada is the only major oil-exporting country that scores highly on all measurements of civil, political, and economic freedom, including the rights of women to full career, medical and travel choices; on media freedom, religious freedom, and property rights, as well as on other measurements such as judicial independence and relative freedom from corruption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".