Examining Proposals for Closer Co-Operation — From Maintaining the Status Quo to Political Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue... From equal beginnings, the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan have evolved much differently. Alberta now has three times the population and 4.5 times the GDP of Saskatchewan. Would closer policy coordination close this gap and be beneficial to the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan? Or are the political preferences of their populations too diverse to allow greater co-operation? The Study in Brief In 1905, Wilfrid Laurier's government established the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta with a border running north to south and drawn to create two provinces approximately equal in size, population and economy. Over time, the political boundary has defined two increasingly unequal economies, with Alberta now having three times the population and 4.5 times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Saskatchewan. While the size and structure of the two economies differ, the provinces are economically integrated. This has prompted some measure of cooperation to harmonize regulations, jointly promote tourism and coordinate education curriculums. However, persistent differences in economic performance have prompted questions about whether a closer union might not be beneficial
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 | 0.040 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".