MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149358323 · doi:10.3109/10826084.2012.663274

Popping the Balloon Effect: Assessing Drug Law Enforcement in Terms of Displacement, Diffusion, and the Containment Hypothesis

2012· article· en· W2149358323 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSubstance Use & Misuse · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsLaw enforcementDiffusionContainment (computer programming)Displacement (psychology)BalloonCriminologyDrugPsychologyMedicineLawSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatrySurgeryComputer sciencePsychotherapistPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The "balloon effect" is an often used but rather dismissive representation of the effects of drug law enforcement. It implies a hydraulic displacement model and an impervious illicit drug trade. This paper reviews theoretical and empirical developments in policing and crime prevention. Based on this, 10 types of displacement are identified and four arguments developed: (1) Displacement is less extensive and harmful than often contended; (2) Where displacement may occur it preferably should be exploited as a policy tool to delay the illicit drug industry and deflect it to less harmful locations and forms; (3) The opposite of displacement occurs, termed a diffusion of drug control benefits, wherein law enforcement has benefits that extend further than envisaged, and has 10 types mirroring those of displacement; (4) The net impact of drug law enforcement is often underestimated, and a containment hypothesis may offer a more accurate framework for evaluation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.289 · 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