MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153482165 · doi:10.3138/cras.39.1.41

Pills, Policy Making and Perceptions: Inside the FDA During the “Reagan Revolution,” 1981–1982

2009· article· en· W2153482165 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucas Richert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresidencyReagan administrationAdministration (probate law)EnforcementAgency (philosophy)Public administrationVictoryGovernment (linguistics)Food and drug administrationPolitical scienceLawPoliticsEconomicsSociologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 and, as promised, quickly took action to rein in the regulatory agencies and limit the size of government. The US Food and Drug Administration, regulator of one quarter of the American domestic economy, was a target of that regulatory reform program. This article explores not only the Reagan administration's impact on the FDA in the early 1980s, but how these impacts were perceived by staff members inside the agency. Getting to grips with how FDA staff members perceived the Reagan victory and thereafter the tangible outcomes of the Reagan administration's regulatory reform agenda from 1981 to 1982 (measured using budget levels, personnel, workload, enforcement actions, and morale) helps clarify and accentuate the existing literature.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207