Cooperatives and the State: The Case of Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early 2000s, the cooperative movement in Ontario came together in order to lobby its provincial government for active cooperative development support programs. Momentum was building for these types of programs. Already, many provincial governments had implemented active support programs in their jurisdiction. Despite having one of the largest cooperative sectors in Canada, Ontario was lagging behind. This article assesses the progress of the efforts of the Ontario cooperative movement to date. It details how the Ontario cooperative movement developed a sectoral identity for itself and framed its objectives in an effort to strengthen its relationship with the Ontario government. / Le mouvement coopératif en Ontario s'est rassemblé au début des années 2000 afin de faire pression sur le gouvernement provincial pour qu'il développe des programmes de soutient actif pour coopératives. Déjà plusieurs gouvernements provinciaux avaient mis en place de telles politiques. L'Ontario tardait malgré le fait qu'il avait un des plus grands secteurs coopératifs au Canada. Cet article examine le progrès qu'a connu le mouvement coopératif en Ontario dans ses efforts. Il décrit comment le mouvement coopératif a construit une identité sectorielle autour de laquelle il a pu ancrer ses demandes auprès du gouvernement ontarien.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".