MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100090807

Ten Contentions Of Corporate Manslaughter Legislation: Public Policy And The Legal Response To Workplace Accidents, Safety Science

2008· article· en· W7100090807 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationParliamentParallelsPublic policyAccident (philosophy)Executive summaryPoison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Recent rail accidents in the UK have focussed public attention on the role that companies play in the causes of incidents and accidents. Partly in response, the Westminster parliament has published proposals to change the legislation on corporate manslaughter. Other accidents have had a similar impact in other countries. For example, the 2006 mining accident in Sago, West Virginia has prompted calls to recognise the responsibility that executive officers share in creating the conditions in which adverse events are likely to occur. There are strong parallels between this accident and the 1992 Westray mining disaster, which motivated significant changes in the Canadian jurisdiction. Similarly, the Longford explosion in Victoria prompted further reviews in Austalia. The following pages provide an overview of the issues surrounding legislation for corporate manslaughter. The review focuses on existing legislation in Canada and Australia as well as recent proposals in England, Wales and Scotland. It forms part of a wider comparative analysis that is intended to help the formation of public policy over the reform of corporate manslaughter legislation.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRegulation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207