MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076652104 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0527

On Precautionary Policies

2006· article· en· W2076652104 on OpenAlexaff
Pauline Barrieu, Bernard Sinclair‐Désgagné

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on OrganizationsPolytechnique MontréalHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecautionary principleStatuteContext (archaeology)Risk analysis (engineering)UncertaintyBusinessResource (disambiguation)Law and economicsPublic economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the United States and most industrialized countries, regulatory policies pertaining to food safety, occupational health, and environmental protection are (according to laws and statutes) science based. The complexity of some ecosystems and new technologies, however, makes it increasingly necessary to deal with situations where scientists cannot yet provide a definite picture. In this context, a widely invoked (but debated) rule, known as the Precautionary Principle, says to address potential hazards right away with preventive measures. We develop an intuitive formalization of this rule, which allows us to infer what an appropriate precautionary policy should do. Implications for resource conservation and the regulation of technological risks are then explored.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.026
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.318
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations57
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207