Bibliographic record
Abstract
Money laundering is ubiquitous in modern discourse because of its pervasive links to criminal activity. It bolsters terrorism, underpins much chastisement of financial institutions and their alleged links to drug cartels, expedites tax evasion, undergirds corruption and resonates in political wrangling over financial debacles. It stands accused of causing, or contributing to, any number of crimes shaped, in one way or another, by money. Stringent anti-money laundering laws seek to tame this malevolence. The product of protracted global efforts, these norms establish an elaborate apparatus designed to detect, intercept and confiscate money connected to criminal activity. This chapter discusses the risks posed by money laundering, dividing these into two categories, associational-risk and non-derivative risk. It canvasses the main tenets of the taming exercise with a focus on the dismantling of secrecy, the central defining feature of money laundering. In concluding that this tempering project has merit, a glimpse of the laundering underworld suggests that much work remains. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".