The Canadian Wheat Board in an Open Market: The Impact of Removing the Single-Desk Selling Powers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the summer and early autumn of 2006, the Government of Canada has indicated its desire to remove the single-desk selling powers of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). The purpose of this paper is to explore the impacts of this proposal. The main conclusion of the paper is that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for the CWB to survive as an organization. Thus, contrary to what the recent task force report by the federal government indicates, the most likely impact of removing the single-desk selling powers is that the CWB will cease to exist. The elimination of the CWB would transform the Canadian grains industry, with the impact of this change felt in virtually every part of the system. The changes that would accompany the loss of the CWB's single-desk selling power would make the Canadian system more and more like that in the United States. It is expected, for instance, that grain company and railroad competition would fall, that producer cars and short line railways would suffer, that the current freight revenue cap would disappear, and that less value would be returned to farmers. Once these changes are made they are irreversible - it would be virtually impossible to go back and restore the system to what is currently in place. The decision to make in a plebiscite. In making this decision, farmers will have to ask themselves, "What is my vision of the grains sector 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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".