Explaining the Paradox: Canada’s Position in the Agricultural Trade Negotiations of the Uruguay and Doha Rounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian government has been holding an inconsistent position in the agricultural trade negotiations of both the Uruguay and Doha rounds. It has been advocating for freer agricultural trade while defending its supply management system, a protectionist policy that governs dairy, poultry and eggs in the country. The thesis attempts to answer the question: What domestic factors explain the inconsistent position, advocating for both liberalization and protectionism, that Canada has been advocating in the Uruguay and Doha rounds of negotiations on agriculture since 1985? The thesis starts with the assumption that the Canadian government has had a preference for free trade and market-based economic policies since the 1980s. The question is therefore less about explaining Canada’s dual position, but rather about explaining why Canada continues to defend supply management, a system that appears to be in contradiction with its policy preferences. The thesis explores two arguments. First, it analyses the lobbying power of the farmers’ organizations from the supply-managed sectors and from the export-dependent sectors. Second, the thesis evaluates the impact of the concentration of supply-managed farms in Quebec and Ontario. It looks at the effect of support by these two provincial governments, at electoral motivations behind the maintenance of supply management as well as at Quebec separatism and nationalism. Finally, the thesis presents the importance of corporatism in the continued governmental support to supply management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".