MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005802933

A Room with a Brew: A Comparative Look at Homebrewing Laws in Japan & the United States

2018· article· en· W7005802933 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Miami law review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegalizationCraftState (computer science)Quality (philosophy)Quarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the enactment of Prohibition, it took the United States almost four decades to legalize homebrewing. Subsequently, the nation experienced a booming interest in beer. And not just beer, but good beer. Drinkers found themselves invested in both quality and variety. This interest has matured into the craft beer industry. Even in holdover states, where state laws prohibited homebrewing far past 1979, the craft beer industry has experienced near exponential growth following the legalization of homebrewing. This has resulted in significant economic implications. Given these considerations, nations with restrictive homebrewing laws, like Japan, should consider easing them. When specifically applied to Japan’s declining beer industry, a similar approach could produce similar results.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Miami law reviewSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207