Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a crop, the opium poppy, Papaver somniferum, has been part of multiple human cultures since at least 5000 BCE. Its role as both food and medicine has made this plant an important traditional agricultural product. However, today research on such functions has been largely eclipsed by the narcotic use of opium and its derivatives and the economies that stem from them. The historical uses of poppy and related cultural conceptualizations of its nutritive and medicinal aspects contrast against practices and commodification introduced by European colonization. The commodification of the narcotic potential of the opium poppy has been used by multiple actors since the onset of globalized economic expansion as a means of attaining financial and political power. This paper draws on research compiled from academic, journalistic, and other sources to create a holistic framework for examining the complex health, social, and economic issues related to contemporary production and use of the opium poppy. This paper concludes that future research, specifically anthropological field research grounded in historical and sociopolitical contexts, can offer important insights into the lived experiences of individuals and cultures that produce, distrubute, and consume the poppy as food and medicine. Such future research may offer critical insight into the relationship between the cultural constructs of food and medicine and the effects of narcotic substance consumption. Such research may also offer insight into the possible restructuring of cultural meanings and economies on a broader scale in order to mitigate the harmful effects of narcotic substances within foods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".