MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296343511 · doi:10.1177/00207314221125057

Arms, Conventional Wisdom, and Public Health Prevention

2022· article· en· W4296343511 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Benach, Carles Muntaner

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmmunitionContext (archaeology)Public healthPolitical scienceSuicide preventionGun violencePoison controlGun controlCriminologyLawHistoryMedicineSociologyEnvironmental healthArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every year, 8 million small arms and 15 billion rounds of ammunition are manufactured in the world. Every day, 700 people worldwide (more than 2.5 million in a decade) die from firearms such as pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, or machine guns. Between 1968 and 2011, there were 1.4 million gun-related deaths in the United States (including suicides, homicides, and accidents) compared with 1.2 million North American deaths in all wars. This article looks at the historic and cultural context that has generated and shaped the U.S.'s "gun culture" and prevailing mentality regarding the right to bear arms, critiquing the vision that such a pro-arms mentality is an intrinsic and unchangeable element of U.S. culture. It exposes the neoliberal roots of the current U.S. gun violence epidemic, asking the question of "why?" in order to move toward an alternative conventional wisdom and overcome this urgent public health crisis in the U.S. and elsewhere.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.041
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health ServicesSame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207