La Loi sur Investissement Canada à l’épreuve de l’attractivité : Contribution à la modernisation du cadre juridique canadien de l’investissement étranger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1950s, Canadian foreign direct investment (FDI) policies have oscillated between scepticism, suspicion and economic nationalism. However, at the turn of the 1980s, Canada attempted a dramatic shift towards a more open policy in line with its decision to liberalize trade. The enactment in 1985 of the Investment Canada Act (ICA), R.S.C. (1985), c. 28 (1st Supp.), which greatly simplified the FDI admission process, was part of this new logic. Yet it appears that, when put to the test, admission of foreign investors to Canada remains dependent on both legal and political uncertainties. This creates perceptions of a lack of transparency around Canada’s legal framework for FDI. Through a review of the ICA, this research paper examines the new admission criteria as well as the FDI selection process, with the goal of determining the level of attractiveness of the ICA. The result is that Canada’s FDI system is one of the most restrictive and would do well to be reformed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".