MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2677233978 · doi:10.1177/0020702017707504

Negotiating a River: Canada, the US, and the Creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway, by Daniel Macfarlane

2017· article· en· W2677233978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Stagg

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationTreatyParliamentLawPower (physics)Government (linguistics)Political scienceHistoryPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Ronald Stagg, Ryerson UniversitySurely one of the longest negotiations between Canada and the United States must be that involving navigation of the Great Lakes, and in particular the St. Lawrence River. Beginning in the 1890s, both the Canadian Parliament and American House of Representatives requested improved navigation on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence route. Negotiations dragged on for over half a century, with each country taking turns being the reluctant partner. Only twice in the intervening years was an agreement close, in 1932 when a change of government in the United States doomed a signed agreement, and in 1941 when the entry of the United States into the Second World War frustrated President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's attempt to carry a measure through Congress.Previous works on the history of the Seaway, from Carleton Mabee's 1961 The Seaway Story to this reviewer's 2010 volume, The Golden Dream: A History of the St. Lawrence Seaway, have covered these negotiations in great detail, with each addressing somewhat different material. Macfarlane has chosen a different approach, summarizing these protracted negotiations in two short but effective chapters and then concentrating on the few years leading up to the signing of the treaty in 1954. To this he has added his take on the building of the St. Lawrence canals and power project, in what could be termed a technological and environmental history, and some comments on the operation of the canal since its completion.Macfarlane's distinctive contribution to the history of negotiations is his in-depth look at the position of the Canadian government on building an all-Canadian system. There has been speculation about whether the Canadian government became frustrated with the time it took the American government to approve the plan and decided to go it alone, or was bluffing to put pressure on the Americans. Macfarlane makes a strong case for the former. By 1952, the Canadian government informed President Harry Truman that, given the difficulties the Truman administration was having in getting approval for a revamped 1941 agreement, Canada was prepared to go it alone in building a new canal system in the St. Lawrence, with strong support from the Canadian public. This much was already public knowledge. The author goes on to explain that, until the American Federal Power Commission approved New York State as the entity responsible for developing the American half of the power project, and all appeals of the decision were exhausted, Canada could not act, even though the power project was considered vital to the future growth of Ontario. By the time this occurred in early 1954 both branches of Congress were discussing new schemes for a joint development, so the Canadian Cabinet decided to wait rather than pursue the all-Canadian plan and possibly offend the Americans. This suggests that there had never been a firm determination in Cabinet for Canada to act alone, but Macfarlane sees the decision as the abandonment of an all-Canadian policy in order to maintain good relations with Canada's wartime ally and trading partner, a point he elaborates upon in his conclusion. …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0190.011
Scholarly communication0.0150.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207