MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560575679 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2016-022

Doors Closed and Opportunities Missed: Lessons from Failed Automotive Investment Attraction in Canada in the 1980s

2016· article· en· W2560575679 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Greigory Mordue

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryDoorsCorporate governanceForeign direct investmentInvestment (military)BusinessAttractionMarketingIndustrial organizationEconomicsPolitical scienceEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 1980s, Canada's automotive manufacturing assembly landscape changed when five new manufacturers from outside of North America made large-scale investments. The industry shifted from one focused on US-owned corporations to one with a much more international orientation. Because of the success Canada enjoyed in attracting foreign automotive investment, one might conclude that those engaged in the process did so with a coherent plan and that the period was marked by one success after another. The reality, however, is that several misses also occurred. Layering archival sources and interviews with secondary sources, this article contributes to the history of the economic development of Canada's automotive industry. Through this, important lessons for policy-makers are offered: The process of goal and policy congruence is demonstrated; one sees how dominant personalities can override governance mechanisms, even in large corporations; and one observes the capacity of exogenous factors to affect the best-laid plans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207