MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603386643

Potash: An Inside Account of Saskatchewan's Pink Gold

2016· article· en· W2603386643 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Eleanor D. Glor

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinnovation journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsiderPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)EndowmentNothingSociologyPolitical sciencePublic administrationEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John BurtonPotash: An Inside Account of Saskatchewan's Pink GoldRegina, Canada: University of Regina Press, 2014Reviewed by Eleanor D. GlorDuring the past 21 years, this journal has addressed many innovations and some innovative governments. None of the articles and books has detailed the innovativeness and innovations of these governments to the extent that the Government of Saskatchewan, Canada, has been documented (e.g. Harding, 1995; Glor, 1997, 2002; Pitsula & Rasmussen, 1990; Baron and Jackson, 1991; Biggs and Stobbe, 1991). Some might think there is nothing more to be said about this highly innovative government, but they would be wrong.Potash is a unique insider's look at the unprecedented purchase by the Government of Saskatchewan of forty per cent of the province's potash mining capacity in 1975 and subsequent years. It is not, however, a one-sided, partisan look at the issues, strategies and developments. Rather, it is a balanced, nuanced and dramatic description of the public sector attempting to assure that the people of Saskatchewan secured adequate returns on their resource and economic development from their enormously rich endowment of pink gold. At the same time, while it carefully describes the positions of those who favoured the innovation, it also attempts to understand and describes the positions of those who were opposed to this strategy.The book is of interest not only for its outlining of this inventive and strategic policy but also because of its clear description of the political and administrative tactics and administrative tools used to conceptualize, legislate and implement the policy. It likewise provides key evaluative measures.John Burton has been a public servant or consultant most of his life, but he also spent four years as an elected member of the national Parliament of Canada. He has a keen mind and a deft pen and adds enough personal material to make this book a real page turner.Saskatchewan was a poor province during most of its history, dependent on agriculture and a small amount of primary industry that suffered from severe ups and downs in prices and production. A Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) farmer-labour social democratic government was elected in 1944 and remained in power until 1964. It attempted to improve the provincial economy by investing in a sodium sulfate mine and steel, box and boot factories. The precedent had thus been set.The Allan Blakeney New Democratic Party (NDP), the successor to the CCF, was elected in 1971 and remained in office until 1982. It sought to diversify the economy through development of its rich natural resources, including oil, forestry, coal, uranium and potash. Potash production began in Saskatchewan in 1962. At the time his government was elected, Saskatchewan had 10 producing potash mines (Appendix B). Potash is a key ingredient in agricultural fertilizers; its price and production tends to move in cycles. The previous government had initiated a supply control system which disadvantaged Saskatchewan potash as provider of last resort. World demand was, however, increasing and windfall profits were being made and about to increase substantially.The Saskatchewan innovations of the early 1970s were a potash reserve tax (in effect, a land tax), a requirement that potash companies submit their financial statements (so that the government could understand the industry better), higher taxes on production, and some other measures. The province also provided the industry with a number of benefits, including infrastructure, research, special grants and loans, support in creating a marketing agency, etc. (page 83).The potash producers resisted these measures and, following the 1975 reelection of the government, brought court cases against the provincial government. …

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinnovation journalSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207