MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125949317

An Empirical Test of the Offset Hypothesis

2001· article· en· W3125949317 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anindya Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Economics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislatureSeat beltOffset (computer science)Demographic economicsExploitEconomicsEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer securityLawComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I exploit cross province and time series variation in Canadian mandatory seat belt legislation to empirically test the offset hypothesis. The results of this study offer modest evidence on the existence of offsetting behavior by drivers. Specifically, increased usage of seat belts by drivers suggests that seat belt legislation should have led to a 29% drop in driver fatalities. However, econometric estimates indicate that the introduction of seat belt legislation is significantly correlated with only a 21% decline in driver fatalities. Further, the use of legislative and non-legislative factors to control for the effects of independent determinants of traffic fatalities is critical, as their omission implies that seatbelt laws are associated with roughly a 32% drop in driver deaths, thus implying an absence of significant offsetting behavior.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and EconomicsSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207