MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767721668 · doi:10.12697/ji.2017.25.06

Changes in the Estonian Cannabis Debate

2017· article· en· W2767721668 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marianne Paimre

Bibliographic record

VenueJuridica International · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisEstonianPoliticsPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)Possession (linguistics)Public opinionPunitive damagesPublic relationsPublic administrationLawSociologyMedicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article analyses the discussion of cannabis regulation in the Estonian media. In the past five years, there has been a noticeable shift in discussion of drug policies in some Western countries and regions (the US, Canada, Latin America, etc.) from a punitive focus towards a more liberal approach. The Global Commission on Drug Policy recommends that countries put an end to civil and criminal penalties for drug use and possession. In this context, the article examines how the Estonian press has reacted to the situation. Which approach to cannabis (continuing to ban it vs. advocating legalisation) prevails in opinion pieces? What are the main arguments both for and against its legalisation? The media could play a prominent role in determining public opinion about illicit drugs and shaping relevant public policies. Hence, the author looks also at how the coverage has changed over time. A content analysis of 57 opinion articles, editorials, comments, interviews, and summaries of public speeches was carried out to study the political debate surrounding cannabis in 2009 and 2015, both years in which it was high on the media agenda. The content analysis was complemented by the method of close reading. The findings indicate that press coverage of cannabis has become more tolerant towards ‘softer’ drug policies. The chorus of ‘voices’ has become more complex, which reflects development of the drug-politics discourse. While the 2009 debate was launched by pro-legalisation lawyers and the discussion involved various professional experts (among them medical doctors, lawyers, and specialists in drug prevention), cannabis more often made headlines in 2015 because of work by civil activists, columnists, writers, etc. A strong dichotomy between traditional law-enforcement discourse and cannabis-legalisation and harm-reduction discourses has emerged. The author expresses the opinion that a shift in the global drug-policy debate alongside softened media coverage may pave the way for changes in the national drug policy.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJuridica InternationalSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207