INFLUENCE OF CONGRESS IN SUPPORTING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE IN RONALD REAGAN ADMINISTRATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to analyze the influence of the United States Congress in influencing the policies of the Ronald Reagan administration in ratifying the Montreal Protocol. This research uses one of the models proposed by Graham T. Allison, a bureaucratic political model. This model is used to analyze the political process associated with the bargaining position and compromise between the actors involved in the governments of Ronald Reagan, Congress and DuPont (the company). To understand how these actors play their role in the domestic political process, researchers use qualitative research by collecting data in the form of books, journals and other documents. Explorative methods are used to explore related argumentative basics related to the political process that occurs between the three actors. The result of this study shows that Congress in the era of the Ronald Reagan administration, especially in the House of Representatives is more dominated than the Democratic Party than the Republicans, while in the Senate during 1981-1989, the Democratic Party was only dominant in 1987-1989. The important three things in this research that all actors obtained their interests. Firstly, it is DuPont Company. It received benefits from CFC (Chlorofluorocarbon) changing such as HFC (Hydrofluorocarbon), HC (Hydrocarbon), and PFC (Perfluorocarbon). Secondly, it is Congress Agency. It which was dominated by the members of Democratic Party that stressing on environmental issues could reach their political program such as environmental protection. Thirdly, it is the Executive Agency. It gained benefits in saving of budget $503 million up to $2,8 billion for treating many diseases such as cortical cataract cancer, decrease of body immunity, and environmental problems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".