An analysis of the effect of the Free Trade Agreement on profitability in the British Columbia wine industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1988 Canada - United States Free Trade Agreement and GATT decision radically altered the trading regime between the two countries. Historically wellinsulated from a competitive environment, there was concern that the British Columbia wine industry would not be able to compete under the new trading rules outlined within the Free Trade Agreement and resulting from the GATT decision that once imported, all products were to be afforded national treatment. This study was undertaken to determine whether or not the industry is better off under the Free Trade Agreement with respect to profits and the ability to compete head on with imports. A benchmark situation covering producer organization/market structure, prices, production and profitability portrays an industry prior to the Free Trade Agreement that is profitable, however, the profitability appears to be based on the fact that the B.C. government was protecting the industry against foreign wine producers. Section 4.0 of the study outlines the trade related factors; policy and procedural changes. Details of industry policy, the FTA, GATT ruling, and interprovincial barriers are discussed with a graphical analysis of the impact of B.C.'s domestic policies on the international market. Section 5.0 studies the industry changes as a result of Section 4.0. Changes in pricing, production (domestic and imported), industry sales and revenue, profitability and marketing strategies lead to the conclusions presented in Section 6.0. The conclusions of the analysis support the hypothesis that the B.C. wine industry is at least as profitable as it was prior to the policy changes and its growth suggests that the most profitable segments of the industry are the premium estate and farm winery segments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".