Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there were overtures from each country to develop a more formal accord to govern the trade of oil and natural gas at different times since 1958, Canada rejected that option in 1974 when it decided to phase out oil exports to the U.S. The main purpose of this research is to trace the development and evolution of Canada-U.S. oil and gas relations from the beginning of the informal continental relationship in 1959, through attempts to formalize a continental oil and gas agreement in the late 1960s, to the initial reversal of continentalism by Canada in 1974. This study examines and compares the changing influence of the explanatory variables of interest groups, international forces, national security, economics, ideas, and personalities on the energy decision- and policy-making processes of Canada and the U.S. between 1958 and 1974. Four key decisions or events that can be considered turning points in the Canada-U.S. oil and gas relationship are analysed and include: Canada's exemption to the American Mandatory Oil Import Program (MOIP); Canada's National Oil Policy (NOP); the near revocation of Canada's MOIP exemption; and Canada's decision to phase out oil exports. These events and relationships are situated in the larger context of interdependence, intergovernmental and transgovernmental relations, and the altered bureaucratic structures of governments in both countries over this period of time. Although decisions concerning Canada-U.S. oil and gas relations, and the pursuit and reversal of continentalist policies, were influenced by concerns regarding the pressure of various interest groups, international forces, national security, and changing economic and ideological circumstances; in the period examined here, the personalities of and personal relationships between Presidents and Prime Ministers, and the actions of key officials, as well as their transgovernmental networks across the border, often made the difference in determining what policy or approach was chosen when and why.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".