MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005681026 · doi:10.1108/13685200410809760

Canada’s laws on money laundering and proceeds of crime: the international context

2003· article· en· W2005681026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Money Laundering Control · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoney launderingConventionConfiscationLawContext (archaeology)Language changeTerrorismOrganised crimeInternational communityPolitical scienceBusinessPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Begins with the Canadian Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act 1991, which was amended after 2001 into the Proceedings of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorism Financing Act. Looks at developments against money laundering in other countries such as the UK and USA; some prominent international measures and conventions include the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the 1990 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, and the Palermo Convention of the United Nations. Mentions also relevant United Nations conventions against terrorism and corruption. Moves on to international standards, mentioning the work of the Basel Committee, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Examines in detail the work of the Financial Action Task Force, which has become the recognised international forum on money laundering matters, and its 40 recommendations.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0140.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Money Laundering ControlSame topicCrime, Illicit Activities, and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207