MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098274002

The Political Economy of the Provincial Periphery: Analyzing the Avaricious Verities Underlying Resources for Freedom and the Uranium Industry in Northern Ontario

2015· article· en· W7098274002 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionCold warHegemonyExportationNatural resourcePresidential systemForeign policyPoliticsInternational relations
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though the burgeoning of bipolarity in the post-World War II period brought with it lauded stability in the international system,1 for the region of Northern Ontario, the emerging Cold War and the ensuing urgency by the United States (US) for strategic staples2 proved portentous in its development. In 1952, US President Harry Truman disseminated the five volume findings of his presidential commission on natural resources deemed fundamental to ensuring US hegemony and sustaining its security in the Cold War.3 Referred to as Resources for Freedom, or simply the “Paley Report ” after the chair of the commission William Paley, it identified twenty-two “key ” natural resources the US required from foreign nations, thirteen of which were found in Canada: aluminium, asbestos, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, natural gas, newsprint, nickel, petroleum, sulphur, titanium, and zinc.4 The Paley Report, furthermore, identified a relatively novel commodity, uranium, as a prospective strategic staple to be procured from Canada.5 In the Cold War world of the 1950s, the exploration, exploitation, and exportation of nuclear commodities like uranium were of grave significance to the US. Alarmed that the former Soviet Union (USSR) had detonated its own atomic bomb in 1949 and was further

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207