The Progress & Freedom Foundation 051807 - PFF Congressional Seminar on The Complexities of Regulating TV Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A PFF Congressional Seminar May 18, 2007 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Rayburn House Office Building, Room B354 Washington, DC 20515 Speakers: Adam Thierer (Moderator), Senior Fellow, The Progress & Freedom Foundation Robin Bronk, Executive Director, The Creative Coalition Robert Corn-Revere, Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Jonathan L. Freedman, Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto and Author, Media Violence and its Effect on Aggression Henry Geller, Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission On April 25th, the Federal Communications Commission released its long-awaited report on Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children. The agency recommended that government assume a greater role in regulating violent video content that comes into the home. The agency concluded that such regulation would "serve the governmentâs interests in protecting the well-being of children and facilitating parental supervision and would be reasonably likely to be upheld as constitutional." Is such regulation necessary? Do parents have the tools at the disposal already to handle this responsibility on their own, or is additional government action needed? How would "excessively violent" content be defined by regulators? Would such rules withstand constitutional scrutiny? This PFF policy seminar will explore the complexities of defining and regulating violent television programming.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".