Uranium Price Expectations and Stabilization Policy Formation in the Manhattan Project: An Institutional Economics Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Governments, and uranium producers and buyers assess policy implications for uranium markets by understanding the price of uranium and the role of government policy over time. To understand the key elements in the formation of price and policy in uranium markets, this study uses the institutional economics method to investigate the institutional arrangements used for procuring uranium in the Manhattan Project (1942–1946). Throughout this period, the formation of price expectations was bounded by the opportunities to receive revenue from selling uranium ore as a by-product and as a main product. In regards to policy formation, price expectations were guided by the need to secure ore for customers, to secure income stability for producers, and to maintain competitive conditions in establishing price stabilization as the main policy. Similar pricing rules and concerns with price stabilization were adopted throughout the uranium market history. These recurring similarities in customs, which are understood through the underlying competitive behavior, are expected to be adapted to contemporary trends, such as global climate change, the joint ownership of mines, and the creation of the Low Enriched Uranium Bank. The contemporary trends represent the new negotiating circumstances for uranium market participants. Therefore, elements in understanding the formation of pricing and price stabilization policy during the Manhattan Project may be adapted to frame future assessments of uranium markets as participants consider advanced nuclear reactors and various nuclear fuel cycles as an option in adapting to contemporary trends.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".