Uncertainties collide: lawyers and money laundering, terrorist finance regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the tentative, highly contingent nature of the contemporary press to impose stringent anti-criminal finance regulatory obligations onto Canadian legal counsel. Design/methodology/approach The approach used in this work is to bring together problems associated with different areas of the anti-criminal finance project in order to demonstrate how these problems compound in the context of the fusion of Canadian lawyers and anti-criminal finance regulation. It draws chiefly on Canadian law and Canadian and international scholarship. Findings This paper shows that the tasking of Canadian legal counsel with additional regulatory burdens continues the pattern of developing legal strategies without paying sufficient attention to the actual results that the strategies produce. Practical implications This paper suggests that any continued construction of an anti-criminal finance apparatus should be accompanied by enhanced study of its actual ability to generate results. Originality/value Most investigations of anti-criminal finance developments assume the effectiveness of a strategy focused on detecting and intercepting resources linked to crime. Rather than assume its effectiveness, this paper demonstrates that an extraordinarily level of uncertainty animates that development.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".