TRANSPORTATION POLICY, COMPETITION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH *
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian transportation policy states that the best way to meet the needs of the Canadian economy and Canadians is to have a transportation system that is competitive, economic and efficient. The competitiveness of Canadian firms in Canadian, North American and world markets depends on the efficiency of the transportation system. The Canada Transportation Act (CTA) maintains the needs of users and the well being of Canadians in rural and urban Canada are met when transportation is provided in the most efficient way possible, namely, at the lowest total cost. The CTA is also clear in stating that the objectives of Canadian transportation policy in serving the needs of users and advancing the well-being of Canadians are achieved, among other things, when rates and conditions do not constitute an undue obstacle to the movement of traffic within Canada or for export and that competition and market forces, both within and among the various modes of transportation, are the prime agents in providing viable and effective transportation services. In essence, the CTA provides that transportation services should be supplied at rates that cover the cost of providing transportation services. Therefore, both the users of transportation services and the providers of transportation services will have their respective needs met by a “competitive, economic and efficient national transportation system”.1 While section 5 of the CTA is a clear statement of policy that competitive market forces should be the means of achieving the objectives of policy, the federal government has adopted differing strategies across modes for achieving those objectives. In rail and
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".