MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326472790 · doi:10.5509/200881173

Narcotics Trafficking in China: Size, Scale, Dynamic and Future Consequences

2008· article· en· W2326472790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ryan Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaScale (ratio)GeographyCartographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

abuse and trafficking are not new developments in China. They have been part of China's history even prior to the Boxer Rebellion and the first British Opium War in the mid-1 800s, as the People s Republic of China s (PRC) sheer size and geography has traditionally made it a likely victim of drug trafficking.1 Today, largely because of China's increased trade and commercial interests with Southeast Asia, a loosening of travel restrictions within China, increased urbanization, longer work hours, and the gradual development of a more consumer-oriented society, the PRC has become a major transit point not only for narcotics bound for other Asian nations, but also for North America, Russia, Europe, Africa and Latin America.2 The repercussions for China have been severe. According to the UN, the PRC produces 50 percent of methamphetamines (AST) in Asia, with most of this production occurring in the southeastern Guangdong province.3 AST drugs include methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and crystal methamphetamine (ice), with much of it supplying markets in the Philippines, Japan and South Korea before entering the global trade through contacts with the Chinese diaspora.4 Further, over one million people are

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific AffairsSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207