Effets de la crise de l’énergie sur la croissance économique de Montréal et du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This impact depends upon changes in trends of certain economic activities both in the short and long run. In the short run the impact will be different in Canada as compared to the United States. The presence of a large hydro-electric capacity will ease the impact of the crisis. Yet, the federal government intervention in the level of oil prices and in the construction of the Sarnia-Montréal pipe-line introduces enough uncertainty to postpone many investment decisions in the Montreal petrochemical complex. In the long run some substitution is possible among sources of energy. In this respect the future Bay James hydro-electrical project should endow the Province of Quebec with a locational advantage, at least in the case of some industries. On the other hand, under the hypothesis that the price of foreign oil will remain high, Montreal looses one of its advantages: the access to cheap oil. This coupled with the fact that the petrochemical industries, e.g., those linked to secondary refining processes such as cracking, reforming and alkylation, prefer a location near the market, will in the long run reduce the rate of growth of the petrochemical complex near Montreal. The market forces are so strong that even before the crisis, Montreal, from 1960 to 1973, experienced a gradual weakening of its relative importance in the secondary stages of refining; for instance in alkylation its position went from 57.3 p.c. of total Canadian capacity to 16.8 p.c. If the hydro-electric potential is not used by the Province of Quebec as a development tool, the oil crisis will slightly hurt Montreal's prospects for development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".