MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807870137 · doi:10.7202/1047374ar

Preconditions, Regulatory Failure and Corporate Negligence Behind the Lac-Mégantic Disaster

2018· article· en· W2807870137 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Bruce Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)DeregulationBusinessGovernment (linguistics)LegislationDamagesMarket economyEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster, July 6, 2013, was not a highly improbable, impossible-to-anticipate event. A number of prior conditions, the product of deliberate regulatory and corporate actions and inactions, contributed to the risk of a major accident. These preconditions include: three decades of railway deregulation under Conservative and Liberal governments under which railways gained increasing freedom to regulate themselves; a weakened, dysfunctional regulator and a flawed safety regime; a negligent company with repeated safety violations and penchant for cutting corners; a regulation-adverse , austerity-minded government indifferent to the growing dangers posed by the increase in the transportation of oil-by-rail; and an industry bent on blocking or weakening potential protective regulations affecting its costs. These preconditions provided the context for a series of mutually reinforcing regulatory failures, which accumulated, and as oil-by-rail grew, so too did the prospects of avoiding an accident diminish, to the point where the question became: when, where and how serious.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
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
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207