Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the determinants of petroleum policy in British Columbia. The vast financial stakes in the petroleum sector, and the upheaval the sector has undergone in the past twenty years, ensure the participation of the most powerful actors in attempting to influence policy in their favor. The thesis examines two specific case studies: (1) the long running dispute over ownership and jurisdiction of Canada's western offshore region, and (2) the radical shifts in natural gas pricing in British Columbia. Four theoretical explanations of policy formation are utilized: party and ideology, Marxism, state autonomy, and internationalism. Party and ideology involves the belief that the political party in power is able to affect the policy process, and that parties have policy preferences based on ideological differences between the parties' members or electoral supporters. The Marxist analysis of capitalist society sees the owners of the means of production as the dominant class, and thus government policy is designed to favor this class. State autonomy focuses on the ability of state actors and/or institutions to affect the policy process in ways that entrench and expand the interests of government actors. Finally, internationalism holds that forces and conditions outside of the polity being studied influence, and may even dominate, domestic policy formation. It is concluded that all four variables play some role in determining policy, but that two of these are paramount. Both the statist impulses generated by the unique variant of federalism found in Canada, and the ability of the petroleum industry to influence the provincial and federal governments, are indispensable in understanding petroleum policy in British Columbia. There is a balance of power between these three sets of actors, each able to put its stamp on policy, but none able to dominate completely.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".