Coasting North: The Problem with the Jones Act for the Offshore Wind Industry and a Remedy from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Note is organized into three parts to examine how the Jones Act hampers the U.S. wind energy industry’s construction of offshore wind farms by requiring that only U.S. vessels transport materials from U.S. ports to the wind farms. The Note proposes a license modeled on Canada’s Coasting Trade Act (“CTA”) to allow non-U.S.-flagged vessels to participate in wind turbine construction. Part I will address the development of cabotage law in the United States, the creation of the Jones Act, and its impact on offshore wind. Part II surveys Canada’s cabotage laws, which culminated in the passage of the CTA in 1990. Examples are given of the successful implementation of the Canadian CTA license. Lastly, Part III argues implementing a licensing system similar to the CTA would be an effective solution to offshore wind woes and outlines how this license would function.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".