MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083854900

Passenger faces charge for bomb joke at Florida airport

2019· other· en· W7083854900 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Archive (Internet Archive) · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture, Water, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJokeCharge (physics)AviationOverhead (engineering)WineryTragedy (event)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Passengers on an Air Canada plane had to disembark and a terminal was closed at a South Florida airport after a woman made a joke that a piece luggage might have a bomb. Authorities say Nathalie Tremblay made the joke Tuesday after a flight attendant had asked passengers who was the owner of an unclaimed bag that wouldnât fit into an overhead bin. Jokes about bombs while you're at an airport are just a common sense no-no...but that didn't stop a woman aboard an Air Canada plane in South Florida.The South Florida Sun Sentinel says it happened at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.A flight attendant asked passengers about an unclaimed bag that wouldn't fit into an overhead bin......that's when police say Nathalie Tremblay commented that maybe it had a bomb in it.The flight attendant was alarmed by her response, reported it to the flight's captain and passengers were forced to disembark.The Broward County Sheriff's Department's bomb squad was called to do a search.Tremblay was arrested and charged with making a false report of a bomb or explosive.At first, she told investigators she had said she hoped there wasn't a bomb. But she later apologized for making a quote, stupid joke."The flight was delayed for around two hours before heading to its original destination of Montreal."

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.033

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternet Archive (Internet Archive)Same topicAgriculture, Water, and HealthFrench-language works237,207