MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Politics of Air Bag Safety: A Competition Among Problem Definitions

2000· article· en· W2031659097 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Studies Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)PoliticsAutomotive industryCompetition (biology)Principal (computer security)Clean Air ActPolitical sciencePublic economicsLaw and economicsPublic administrationPolitical economyEconomicsLawEngineeringComputer securityComputer scienceAir pollution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In light of 121 deaths attributed to air bag deployments, mainly to children and adults of small stature, recent policy debate has focused on modifying current Federal automotive air bag regulations. A problem definition perspective is employed to understand the nature of this debate. Utilizing a content analysis of the official record of one U.S. House and two U. S. Senate hearings, it is argued that four problem definitions characterize the debate over air bag safety: behavioral, regulatory, technological, and corporate greed. Furthermore, it is argued that a problem definition perspective offers a better explanation of recent changes to Federal air bag regulations than do pluralist, elitist, and principal‐agent models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.236 · 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