Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter begins with an overview of Canadian investment policy (Part II). Part III then describes the development and status of Canada’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (‘FIPAs’). Part IV describes internal government processes for the negotiation and conclusion of FIPAs. The bulk of the chapter (Part V) provides an article-by-article commentary on the current model FIPA in light of Canadian treaty practice to date. Post-World War II, Canadian foreign investment policy has cycled between encouragement of foreign investment and nationalist concerns that foreign (predominantly American) control of economic enterprises is a threat to Canadian sovereignty.1 Although the Canadian Government generally encouraged foreign investment in the 1950s and 1960s in order to develop Canada’s resource and manufacturing industries, a series of government reports in this period raised concerns with increasing rates of foreign ownership.2 In response to nationalist concerns that Canada was creating a ‘branch plant’ economy, in 1974, the Liberal government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau enacted the Foreign Investment Review Act (‘FIRA’),3 which created the Foreign Investment Review Agency and required the notification and review of foreign investment.4 In 1985, the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney replaced FIRA with the less-restrictive Investment Canada Act and signalled greater openness to American foreign investment by signing in 1988 the Canada–US Free Trade Agreement (‘CUSFTA’),5 Chapter Sixteen of which included investment liberalization and protection provisions.6 The CUSFTA was followed in 1992 by the conclusion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (‘NAFTA’)7 between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. NAFTA included Chapter Eleven (Investment) and provision for investor-State arbitration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.670 | 0.345 |
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".