MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343206434 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2016.05.04

Macroeconomics and Drug Use: A Review of the Literature and Hypotheses for Future Research

2016· review· en· W2343206434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas Nicholson, David F. Duncan, Gregory Ellis‐Griffith, Akihiko Michimi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal justiceAddictionSubstance abuseCriminologyWork (physics)DrugEconomic JusticeSet (abstract data type)EconomicsPublic economicsPolitical scienceMedicineSociologyPsychiatryLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite more than a century of drug prohibition, problems of addiction and drug abuse continue to be major global public health and criminal justice concerns (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2015). It has long been obvious that many of these problems are entwined with other economic and social issues. The editors of The Economist, in reporting evidence of a decline in drug use in the UK, speculated on the impact of the concurrent economic slowdown and commented that, “few academics have studied the link between drug use and macroeconomic performance, and what work exists is inconclusive” (Drug use and abuse: The fire next time, 2011). The goal of this paper will be to examine the work that exists on this topic and to propose a set of hypotheses to be tested in future studies.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.297
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207