From Farm Crisis to Food Crisis: Neoliberal Reform in Canadian Agriculture and the Future of Agri-Food Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation begins by providing an overview of Canadian agriculture policy during the first half of the twentieth century. It examines the origins of railway transportation subsidies, farm income subsidies, and the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), policy instruments that became structural features of the agricultural industry on the prairies. It then analyzes the structural pressures that led governments to rethink these features beginning in the 1970s, and the demographic and political context in which farmer support for collective institutions was eroded and neoliberal farm groups came to influence public policy over the decades that followed. Subsequent chapters examine the way that the federal government attempted to reform farm income subsidies in the 1990s and 2000s, in order to adhere to newly established international trade rules, and the relative success of those efforts. Two chapters are then devoted to the political struggle between the neoliberal and collectivist coalitions (farm groups, opposition parties, and governments) over the future of the CWB’s single desk. The second of these chapters focuses on the final political struggle that occurred once the Harper Conservatives won a majority government in 2011, and how the single desk was finally brought to an end. Two concluding chapters then examine the new politics that has emerged around issues pertaining to food security, food safety, and environmental sustainability in Canada, how these issues affect, but often fail to intersect with, the continuing debates about the future of Canadian farming. The dissertation ends by exploring ways that prairie farmers might make connections to these issues, and with the groups working on them, in order to ensure their involvement in the future of agri-food policy in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".