MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514023810 · doi:10.4000/eccs.505

La conception corporatiste de l’exploitation des ressources naturelles sous le gouvernement conservateur de Stephen Harper

2015· article· fr· W2514023810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María Teresa Gutiérrez Haces

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes canadiennes / Canadian Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harper a apporté au gouvernement fédéral la vision économique des provinces de l’Ouest canadien. Proche des intérêts de cette région, il a fortement soutenu ses entreprises, au Canada comme à l’étranger. Son appui au secteur privé s’est traduit par la restructuration de certains services du gouvernement, comme Exportation et développement Canada (EDC) pour soutenir l’activité minière de ces entreprises à l’étranger. Le budget fédéral a été modifié également pour les épauler. Cet article examine divers aspect de cette politique : le retrait du gouvernement du protocole de Kyoto ; la stratégie d’ouverture des ressources naturelles du Canada et donc de son territoire, impliquant la transformation des Territoires du Nord-est, du Yukon, et du Nord du Québec ; la reformulation de l’aide au développement, maintenant destinée aux entreprises canadiennes ; la création d’un discours officiel qui voudrait concilier les activités des entreprises d’extraction avec la politique internationale du Canada, à travers la certification « entreprises socialement responsables » et pour finir la promotion du Canada comme paradis fiscal pour les entreprises minières.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes canadiennes / Canadian StudiesSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207