Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses the problem of how to allocate resources productively in homeland security, with a primary focus on measures implemented at airports to protect passengers and planes. While the primary focus is on US airports, US airport security policies and practices are compared and contrasted with those of Canada and the European Union. The chapter argues that it is feasible to use forms of benefit/cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis in this field and that resources should be allocated on a risk-based basis. It finds that while official policy in all three jurisdictions embraces risk-based policies, there is only modest evidence of such policies being implemented in the 12 years following the attacks on September 11, 2001. To illustrate a more risk-based approach, the chapter sets out a model for passenger and baggage screening, elements of which have begun to be implemented in the United States. Also discussed are the drawbacks of combining security policy-making and service delivery in the same agency, which is unique to the airport security regime in the United States. Finally, the chapter also explores the question of who should pay for airport security.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it