Pills, Policy Making and Perceptions: Inside the FDA During the "Reagan Revolution," 1981-1982
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. Ronald Reagan a été élu à la présidence en 1980 et, tel qu'il l'avait promis, il a immédiatement entrepris de serrer la vis aux organismes et de réduire la taille du gouvernement. La U.S. Food and Drug Administration, l'organisme de réglementation du quart de l'économie intérieure américaine, a été visée par ce programme de réforme des règlements. Le présent article analyse non seulement les effets de l'administration de Ronald Reagan sur la FDA au début des années 1980, mais aussi la façon dont ces effets ont été perçus par les membres du personnel de l'organisme. Bien comprendre comment les membres du personnel de la FDA ont perçu la victoire de Reagan et par la suite les résultats tangibles du programme de réforme réglementaire de l'administration Reagan en 1981-1982 (mesuré à l'aide des niveaux budgétaires, du personnel, de la charge de travail, des mesures d'application, et du moral) permet de clarifier et d'accentuer la littérature existante.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".