U.S. Coins: Public Views on Changing Coin Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The designs on three of the most common U.S. coins, the penny, nickel, and dime, have remained largely unchanged for over 50 years. The 50 State Quarters Program, involving a set of recurring designs commemorating each state, has been credited with generating renewed interest in the quarter by collectors and the public. A recent redesign of the new dollar coin has also increased the public's interest in collecting the coin, but it is not widely circulating. Concerned about the level of public interest in coins and the circulation of the dollar coin, Congress mandated a GAO review of U.S. coin design, with particular attention to increasing circulation of the dollar coin. GAO contracted with the Gallup Organization to survey a representative sample of U.S. adults to obtain public views on various coin design questions, including public preference for coin denominations, coin design features, the frequency of change in coin design, and ways to increase acceptance and use of the new dollar coin."
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it