MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122029911 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v7i1.42453

Should Canada Worry About a Resource Curse?

2017· article· en· W3122029911 on OpenAlex
Alan Gelb

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 School of Public Policy Publications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNatural Resources and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryResource curseCurseResource (disambiguation)PsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceAnxietyLawAnthropologyNatural resourcePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An abundance of natural resources might seem like something any nation would want to be blessed with. But in some countries, a bounty of energy, minerals and other resources can become as much a curse as a blessing. The difference between whether resources benefit a country’s people, or lead to adversity and even suffering, has everything to do with how a country manages its resources. It is the difference between a resource-rich, free and democratically accountable country, such as Canada, and a resourcerich, corrupt, violent and impoverished country, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo. In many resource-rich countries, the effect of ample natural wealth has been to sever the accountability link between citizens and government, slowing or even reversing democratic and social progress, while mostly enriching a few politically favoured constituencies. Canada’s plentiful resources are an indisputable blessing, and those critics of federal industrial policy who compare this country to illiberal and corrupt “petro-states” are being either ignorant or deceitful. There are numerous critical factors at work here that ensure that the Canadian public benefits, rather than suffers, from our natural endowments. We have a diversity of resources, as opposed to being reliant on a single commodity, and our natural-resource sector makes up only a small portion of our larger economy. We have well-established and diligently enforced standards for financial transparency and accountability, in both the private and public sectors. But, just as importantly, there is a national consensus in Canada that public wealth amassed from resource rents should be invested in strengthening human capital, through education, training and social services, as well as in improved infrastructure and better governance, eventually parlaying natural-resource wealth into a yet larger, further-diversified economy. But Canada — and especially resource-rich provinces, such as Alberta — cannot take these factors for granted. A combination of complacency and natural wealth has the potential to turn a blessing into a curse. Even once reasonably democratic and accountable countries, such as Venezuela, have been caught unprepared on the dangerous double edge of a resource boom and have seen their governance systems substantially eroded. Developing the fiscal capacity to withstand commodity-market shocks, creating effective and durable checks and balances on systems of legislative power, enforcing transparency in budgeting and public-investment management, and maximizing tax efficiencies and tax administration, are all areas where Canadians can and should focus their efforts. These are the fundamental safeguards that will ensure our ample natural resources continue to be seen by our citizens as a blessing and not — as is the unfortunate case in so many other countries — a curse.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.193 · 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