MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026110009 · doi:10.1177/0022526620920789

Government procurement policy and the establishment of manufacturing: Aircraft industry in Australia, Canada and South Africa 1918–39

2020· article· en· W3026110009 on OpenAlex
Malcolm Abbott, Jill Bamforth

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Transport History · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementGovernment (linguistics)Investment (military)Government procurementStrengths and weaknessesWorld War IIFormative assessmentAircraft industryManufacturingEconomyBusinessPolitical scienceEngineeringEconomicsAeronauticsPoliticsLawMarketingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the different aircraft procurement policies of the Canadian, Australian and South Africa air forces in the formative years of the industry in each country between the world wars. In doing so, it will highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses exhibited by the different approaches taken by the three governments attempting to build up aircraft manufacturing in the inter-war period (1918–39). Before 1938, the Australian and South African governments made no attempt to attract investment by British and American aircraft manufacturers, the opposite of what Canadian Government did; as a result, the industry was less developed in the former two countries when the Second World War broke out.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.158 · 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