Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interest in Canada centres on the United States-Canada Automotive Trade Agreement of 1965 — the reasons for it and the economic consequences.In a sense the Canadian motor industry was the creation of the Canadian government. Its policy of tariff protection coupled with the encouragement of foreign investment inevitably resulted in an industry almost entirely owned and controlled by the much larger American firms just over the border. During the postwar years preceding the Agreement it was an inefficient industry by international standards, primarily because of small-scale production, and this largely precluded exports. The limited domestic market, in which new registrations of passenger cars averaged some 450,000 units a year in the decade prior to 1965, was not large enough to enable even one volume producer to be competitive. But there were four producers – American Motors, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. It was the familiar picture of oligopolistic competition in a sheltered market, with each firm producing a range of models and so further fragmenting that market. Despite a level of wages 30 per cent lower than in the US, factory list prices of certain popular models made in both countries were 18 per cent higher in Canada. They would have been appreciably higher than that had not 40 per cent of the value of the Canadian-built cars (50 per cent for trucks) consisted of components produced in high-volume plants in America and imported duty free, providing the equivalent was not obtainable 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.015 |
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".