MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139266291

The Limits of Local Authority Over Recreational Cannabis

2019· article· en· W3139266291 on OpenAlexaffabout
Felix Hoehn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisLegalizationLegislationRecreationStatutory lawBusinessLocal governmentScope (computer science)Local authorityLocal communityEffects of cannabisPublic administrationPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the legalization of recreational uses of cannabis Canadian local governments will need to regulate some cannabis-related activities. Thanks to statutory enhancements of the powers of municipalities and greater judicial respect for municipal authority, local governments generally have flexible powers that are broad enough to allow them to regulate the location and other aspects of cannabis-related activities, including consumption in public places and licensing cannabis-related businesses. Local governments can also ban some or all cannabis-related activity, either by taking advantage of local option clauses included in some provincial and territorial legislation, or by grounding bans on purely local powers. Local bans of activities such as home cultivation, cannabis lounges or retail sales will be valid if they are narrow in scope, enacted for a municipal purpose, and do not frustrate the purpose of the Cannabis Act. Broader local bans will face greater challenges, and would need to be geographically limited to minimize the impact on national objectives. They would also need to be grounded in a municipal purpose such as health and safety or protecting a unique cultural or religious community character.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207