Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the role of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) in regulating the western Canadian grain industry. The CWB has been in existence since 1935, but concerns have been raised about its role since the 1950s. There is some question as to whether the CWB actually possesses the legal authority to exercise its regulatory role. The historical background of the current grain regulation is reviewed and the current state of debate about CWB control of transportation is outlined. Arguments in favor and against the proposition that CWB lacks legislative authority are presented. This analysis concludes that the situation for which the current CWB legislative provisions were designed no longer exists. Although the logistics have changed, the legislation has not, and the powers provided no longer apply to the current situation. The analysis also shows that there is an arguable case that the CWB does not possess the legal authority to perform its current regulatory activities. The objectives for which the CWB's transportation regulatory powers were provided can be met through commercial means and no longer require regulation to achieve them. Continued regulatory control is inconsistent with broad and long-standing government policies favoring deregulation and greater reliance on market forces. Since grain accounts for more than 20% of rail traffic in western Canada, the inefficiencies caused by the CWB regulation impact overall railroad efficiency.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".