Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada implemented a series of laws regulating firearms including background checks and licensing, references, psychological questionnaires, prohibition of paramilitary style rifles, and magazine capacity restrictions in order to decrease the incidences and deaths from mass shootings. The associated effects of these laws were examined over the years 1974 to 2020. A model was constructed using difference-in-differences analysis of firearms and non-firearms mass homicide incidences and death rates. Mass homicides were defined as a homicide due to one event involving three or more deaths. Incidence rates of mass homicide by firearm were found to be 0.11 (95%CI 0.08, 0.14) per million compared to a non-firearm mass homicide rate of 0.12 (95% CI 0.10, 0.15) per million. Mass homicide death rates by firearm were found to be 0.39 (95% CI 0.29, 0.49) per million compared to a non-firearm mass homicide rate of 0.47 (95% CI 0.34, 0.61) per million. Overall, there is a gradual declining trend in the incidence of mass homicide by firearm (IRR 0.97 (95% CI 0.96, 0.98)) and by non-firearm (IRR 0.97 (95% CI 0.97, 0.98)). The decline in mass homicide death rate by firearm and non-firearm is IRR 0.96 (95% CI 0.95, 0.97), and IRR 0.97 (95% CI 0.96, 0.98) respectively. No specific associated decrease in mass homicide incidence rates or death rates with firearms legislation was found after the implementation of background checks and prohibition of full auto firearms in 1980, by the implementation of references and psychological questionnaires in 1994, by the restriction of magazine capacity in 1994, the prohibition of paramilitary rifles in 1994, or licensing in 2001.
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) | 0.000 | 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".