Agriculture and Agri-Food, Gerry Ritz announced the dissolution of the Canadian Wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay analyses the rise and fall of the Canadian Wheat Board through the lens of historical institutionalism. We establish a comparison across time between the economical, social and political contexts that influenced the birth and the death of the institution. In the first section of this essay, we define the economical, social and political factors that we will use as a guideline to compare the contexts of the creation and dismantlement of the Canadian Wheat Board. This section is based on the work of Swinnen (2009) on the emergence of the protection of agriculture in the 20th century. The second section of this essay gives an overview of the Canadian Wheat Board with detailing on its history, its role and guiding principles, and the place it takes in the Canadian and international markets. This section aims to prove that the Canadian Wheat Board was, in fact, created in order to provide protection to the farmers and that Swinnen’s analysis is relevant to the Canadian experience. In the third section of this essay, we use the five factors identified by Swinnen (demonstrated in section one) to compare the Canadian contexts during the rise and the
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".