MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989432608 · doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrn062

Jailed for Possession: Illegal Drug Use, Regulation, and Power in Canada, 1920-1961

2008· article· en· W1989432608 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Judith A. Erlen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPossession (linguistics)LawPower (physics)Political scienceMedicineArtLibrary sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debate about appropriate policies for dealing with illicit drugs normally divides historians into three diametrically opposed camps. One group favors criminalizing most if not all of this category of drugs and harsh jail terms for those caught dealing and/or using these substances. The second approach favors legislation to prohibit drug importation and use. The final historical approach is to view drug users through a more sympathetic eye, often favoring treatment and education over jail time, as well as the decriminalization of some less harmful currently illegal drugs. This volume definitely falls into the latter approach. Based on her doctoral dissertation, Carstairs examines the efforts of the Canadian government and law enforcement agencies to curtail the use of illicit drugs in Canada during what the author terms the classic era of drug enforcement, 1920–61. This volume is part of the Studies in Gender and History Series, and the themes of racism, gender discrimination, and poverty run throughout the text.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the History of Medicine and Allied SciencesSame topicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical PracticesFrench-language works237,207