Estimating the Credibility of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation's Threat to Nationalize Oil Resources in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the validity of the commonly held view that the ideology and policies of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) governments in Saskatchewan (1944- 1964) re-tarded the development of Saskatchewan’s oil and gas resources. We develop a model to value land with an exhaustible resource under uncertainty. The uncertainty comes from a positive probability of expropriation with zero compensation. This research adds to the existing litera-ture as the model results in the derivation of a simple equation that allows identification and estimation of the effect of expropriation risk, given appropriate data are available. The model is used to evaluate the effect of the CCF on the natural resource industry in Saskatchewan. The tenure of the CCF is used as a proxy for the perceived probability of expropriation. The results indicate the CCF government did affect expenditure on mineral rights in Saskatchewan. More precisely, the effect of the CCF was to reduce the discounting of current profits in determining the value of land, which decreased expenditures on land. The expropriation threat did not reduce investment in production, but did reduce willingness to pay for mineral rights relative to Alberta.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".