Nafta And Canadian Energy Policy- Analyzing Article 605 And Exposure To International Oil Prices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2008, Gordon Laxer, political economist at the University of Alberta, and John Dillon, Global Economic Justice Program Coordinator for KAIROS, released a report entitled “Over a Barrel: Exiting from NAFTA’s Proportionality Clause”. The two authors believe there to exist within NAFTA a clause that threatens Canadian energy security and sovereignty in regards to accessing domestic oil and natural gas resources; the clause they refer to is Article 605 of NAFTA. This report analyzes the theoretical and practical implications of Article 605 as it pertains to Canadian access to oil. It does so through a comparative analysis of two scenarios: the first represents a Canada free from any responsibility to the NAFTA energy clause; the second scenario represents the country’s current reality, responsible and accountable to the stipulations of NAFTA and Article 605. The common unit of analysis is exposure to international oil prices – reasons for which are elucidated in the paper. The findings of the research suggest that Article 605 could, indeed, have an impact on Canadian access to oil. Perhaps more controversially, the research also indicates that the current impact of Article 605 could by be quite minimal, and that infrastructure limitations represent a greater impact in terms of Canadian exposure to international oil prices and the possibility of supply shortages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".