MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904622021

NB Power 1967–72: Constructing the Export Dream

2018· article· fr· W2904622021 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew G. Secord

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of New Brunswick Studies / Revue d’études sur le Nouveau-Brunswick · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionGovernment (linguistics)Power (physics)State (computer science)BusinessControl (management)Scale (ratio)Quality (philosophy)Market economyPublic administrationEconomicsFinanceManagementPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the origins of the export-led strategy of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission (NBEPC) beginning in the late 1960s, a period when NBEPC integrated its planning with American markets to a greater extent than other Canadian electrical utilities. Utilizing archival records of NBEPC and of several federal and provincial government departments, the research documents strategic choices made by NBEPC managers as they attempted to take advantage of markets in New England to deal with limits to their organizational growth within New Brunswick. The result was a shift from NBEPC’s power-for-industry strategy of the 1950s to a power-for-export strategy by the early 1970s. The research emphasizes the power of the state enterprise managers to control the policy formation process, a capacity that originated in the 1950s. While NBEPC executives were driven by their theories of the technical benefits of terconnections and associated economies of scale, the osts were the adverse implications for air quality, federal regional policy, and provincial taxation policy.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0130.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of New Brunswick Studies / Revue d’études sur le Nouveau-BrunswickSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207