MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W184263839

WARHEADS TO NAIL POLISH: HAZMAT REGULATION IN A DANGEROUS WORLD

2003· article· en· W184263839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L W Bierlein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of transportation law, logistics, and policy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardous wasteHomeland securityLegislationAirport securityNational securityBusinessComputer securityEngineeringLawTerrorismPolitical scienceComputer scienceWaste management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has the primary regulatory authority to classify hazardous materials in transportation. DOT also works closely in conjunction with the United Nations, Canada and Mexico in developing harmonized hazmat regulations. Nine classes of hazardous materials are covered. Hazmat, as a regulatory concept, literally covers everything from warheads to nail polish, which means that any security program made applicable to all shippers or carriers of hazardous materials will have a wide and perhaps unintended impact. Subsequent to September 11, 2001, DOT urged all shippers and transporters of higher hazardous materials to take added precautions, including avoiding populated areas whenever practicable. The article reviews the advisory guidance issued by DOT on February 14, 2002 covering new security requirements. Also discussed is the Homeland Security Act passed by Congress and signed by the president in December 2001. That legislation gives the Department of Homeland Security broad authority, but DOT retains safety and security responsibility for hazmat transportation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of transportation law, logistics, and policySame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207