Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1970, youthful researchers carried out participant-observer studies of the drug scene in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. This ethnographic research, prepared for the federal Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (the LeDain Commission), was part of the commission’s extensive series of unpublished studies. The commission, which released an initial report in 1970, one on cannabis in 1972 and a final report in 1973, adopted a broad approach to the issue of drugs and society. This article examines the unpublished studies as examples of social science “intelligence gathering” on urban social problems. The reports discussed the local market in illegal drugs, its geographic patterns and organizational features, the demographic characteristics of drug sellers and consumers, the culture of the drug scene, and the attitudes of users. Unlike earlier sociological and anthropological studies that focused on prisoners and lower-class “junkies” or more recent studies that examine marginalized inner-city populations, the city studies reflected the era’s fixation on middle-class youth culture and the addiction-treatment sphere’s growing concern with amphetamine abuse.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".