Introduction to the 1963 Edition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the aspects of Canadian economic policy and thinking about policy problems singled out for criticism in the first two parts of this book, one of the most prominent and pervasive is the worry about the problem, or the alleged problem, of American "domination" of the Canadian economy through direct investment by U.S. corporations in Canada, and the desire to counteract such "domination" by measures to foster Canadian participation in such enterprises.I have consistently maintained that this is a spurious problem, on the grounds that there is no substantive evidence that American enterprises in Canada have acted contrary to the national interest, 1 and that if any such behaviour should occur or threaten to occur, Parliament, and not a group of Canadian stockholders foisted on the foreign companies by fiscal discrimination or political blackmail, is the appropriate guardian of the public interest.Moreover, insofar as there is a problem, it is largely one that Canada has created for itself by its policy of protection of manufacturing: the tariff creates a profit incentive to foreign firms to establish branch plants and subsidiaries in Canada in order to produce in Canada inside the tariff wall instead of exporting to Canada over the tariff wall, and it is inconsistent to say the least to defend protection yet complain of its effects in stimulating foreign investment in the country, 2 These and other arguments are elaborated on in detail in Parts I and II; but since the ill-judged and ill-fated Liberal Budget of 1963 has attempted to translate the contrary point of view into explicit policy, it seems desirable to say something more about the subject here.To begin with, it is relevant to refer to some facts about American investment in Canada, and to the results of some recent analyses of the economic gains and losses involved in international investment, to put the matter in statistical and theoretical perspective.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.422 | 0.294 |
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".