MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048601559 · doi:10.1080/09595230500125179

The stages of the international drug control system

2005· article· en· W2048601559 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Carstairs

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug and Alcohol Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminalizationDrug controlHarmControl (management)Harm reductionLeaguePolitical scienceDrugDemand reductionInternational tradeBusinessDevelopment economicsPublic administrationMedicineLawEconomicsPharmacologyPsychiatryManagementPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues that the history of the international drug control system of the League of Nations/United Nations can be divided into three cumulative stages. The first stage, the supply stage, dates back to early part of the 20th century, and aimed to reduce the supply of drugs through careful monitoring and trade regulations. This has remained the dominant control strategy. In the middle of the century, demand control, in the form of treatment and criminalization of the individual user, began to appear. This was the least successful stage. Finally, in the 1980s, the dangers of the drug traffic assumed an important place on the international agenda and measures to reduce drug-related organized crime were enacted. To date, this has been a process of proliferation of regulatory strategies. Recently, new challenges to the international drug control system have emerged, including well-funded non-governmental organizations critical of the war on drugs, and the adoption of harm reduction measures in national policies around the world.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations62
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug and Alcohol ReviewSame topicCrime, Illicit Activities, and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207