The answer to the 'Natural Resources Question' : a historical analysis of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seventy-five years ago the provincial governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta signed a series of Natural Resources Transfer Agreements (NRTAs) with the federal government. These agreements provided the answer to a contentious debate known as the 'Natural Resources Question'. Before the NRTAs, the three prairie provinces did not have control over their public domain lands and did not share equal constitutional status with the other Canadian provinces. In the early 1920s, Prime Minister King recognized the validity of the provincial arguments for constitutional equality and no longer wanted the federal government to be responsible for the administration of provincial natural resources. By this time, the policy ambitions which had previously justified the retention of the natural resources had been fulfilled. Thus, the constitutional rights arguments presented by the prairie provinces found a receptive audience when the control of the lands and resources were no longer a federal priority.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it