MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022774795 · doi:10.1177/0022042613491104

Precursors and Prices

2013· article· en· W2022774795 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marie Ouellet, Carlo Morselli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Drug Issues · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDifferential (mechanical device)Industrial organizationDrugProduction (economics)BusinessEconomicsMicroeconomicsMedicineEngineeringPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few analyses of basic elements of the synthetic drug market have been conducted, particularly in regard to its structural features. Synthetic drug’s relatively recent classification as an illicit substance, coupled with its distinct clandestine characteristics, has hindered the development of reliable assessments of the market’s structural features. Using information derived from 365 seized synthetic drugs, this study aims to reliably examine the structural attributes of Quebec’s synthetic drug market by merging two approaches: drug composition and economic analysis. Findings for the drug composition analysis indicate that the market is composed of a high number of small structures, indicating a competitive and decentralized market. Providing complementary information, the economic analysis revealed that differential production costs and relations between traffickers influence price variations, depending on the region. These results emphasize the need to design policies that account for regional differences as well as reflect the competitive nature of the market.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Drug IssuesSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207