The Dynamics of Institutional Resilience and Transformation: The Case of the Canadian Wheat Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the mid-1990s, the Canadian marketing agency with a long-standing monopoly to export prairie-grown wheat and barley came under attack. The Canadian Wheat Board’s export monopoly was the major source of criticism, the target of a minority of prairie farmers and the government of Alberta. While endorsing the Board’s monopoly, other prairie farmers nonetheless criticized the Board’s lack of direct accountability to farmers and its `inflexible’ operating procedures. The conflict over the Wheat Board enveloped prairie Canada for almost five years, encompassing a legal challenge to the Wheat Board’s constitutionality, a government-commissioned review of its mandate and functioning, and a prairie-wide referendum on the Board’s appropriate marketing authority. The turmoil abated with statutory changes to the governance and operational structures of the Wheat Board, but not to its monopoly over export sales of wheat and barley. As the legislative changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act were making their final passage through parliament, a spokesmen for the Wheat Board voiced his approval for the reforms, stating that they reflected “balance.”1 From the perspective of institutionalist accounts, the outcome of this debate over the Wheat Board’s role and functioning is neither surprising nor difficult to explain. The Wheat
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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".