Non-Federal Sovereign Wealth Funds in the United States and Canada: Public Asset Accumulation and Investment in Developed Economies (Fonds Souverains d’Amérique du Nord: Accumulation de Capital et Choix d’Investissement)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: Going back to the root meaning of “sovereign”, from Old French soverain “lord, master”, derived from Latin super “greater, above others” allows us to better understand the symbolic charge associated with this particular category of institutional investor... Some wrote that the U.S. could potentially “lose control of assets to wealthier foreign funds” whose emergence “shake[s] [the] capitalist logic”... This article will not seek to analyze the much-studied Asian and Middle East and North Africa (MENA) area government-controlled funds but instead will focus on state asset accumulation and investment in developed economies by covering key U.S. and Canadian non-federal sovereign wealth funds, whose foundation sometimes precedes that of their emerging markets peers, but have, until now, received far less attention from scholars and commentators... With natural gas production increasing in scope and size in many US states and other industrialized countries such as Cyprus and Israel, an uptick in the number of sovereign funds in developed jurisdictions might be a realistic possibility. French Abstract: Cet article issu d'un projet de recherche euro-americain - World Pension council (WPC) et Center for State and Local Government Excellence (SLGE) - presente les fonds souverains d'Amerique du Nord du point de vue de l'accumulation du capital et des politiques d'investissement des instances publiques (locales) des nations developpees. En quelques annees, les fonds souverains sont devenus des acteurs majeurs sur les marches financiers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".