La contrebande des produits du tabac au Canada entre 1985 et 1994 et le cas particulier du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The professional smuggling of mass consumption products develops when demand for a product is not adequately fulfilled by the legitimate market. The difficulties encountered in supplying are, in most contemporary cases, caused by real rarity of the desired product. For other cases, however, the rarity is largely virtual in that government taxes aimed at the product in question lead to increasing the product's price to a prohibitive end. This was the case with cigarettes in Canada between 1985 and 1994. Before both, the federal and provincial, governments decided to drastically decrease cigarette taxes in February 1994, the price for a pack of cigarettes was five to six times higher than the same product in the United States. This article begins with a brief review of the contribution made by economists in regard to contemporary smuggling. Focus will be aimed at common characteristics of the smuggling phenomenon across the world. Elements which are more particular to the Canadian smuggling situation will be identified as well. While the difference in the price of cigarettes between Canada and the United States would seem to be the undeniable driving force behind the development of smuggling activities at the countries ' border, one key question remains unexplained. Why was the volume of contraband unequally distributed across Canada even though the price of cigarettes remained largely consistent throughout all provinces? The level of organization of smuggling networks was much higher in Eastern Canada, and particularly in Quebec, than it was in the western provinces. It is argued that the reasons for this are not only due to price, but to a series of political, historical, and geographical factors which allowed cigarette smugglers to function better in Quebec than in the rest of the country.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".