MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W349971180 · doi:10.1177/009145090803500404

Editors’ Introduction Global Trade in Alcohol and Drugs: Histories of Distribution and Control

2008· article· en· W349971180 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Drug Problems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistribution (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on the new interest in global history, drug and alcohol scholars have increasingly taken an international approach to their topics. The literature on the spread of alcohol and drugs around the world and on the development of international control regimes has grown rapidly.* To capitalize on this growing field, the 4th International Alcohol and Drug History Conference, held in August 2007 at the University of Guelph, cenetred on the theme of Global Approaches. The conference attracted participants from across the world, and paid particularly careful attention to the international trade in drugs and alcohol, the development of the international control regimes, and the impact of colonialism and neo-colonialism on the cultures of drug and alcohol use.This special issue of Contemporary Drug Problems focuses on global trade in alcohol and drugs, and attempts to suppress their use in different national contexts. Another set of articles from the conference is being published in Social History of Alcohol and Drugs. We are very grateful for generous support provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Associated Medical Services, the Alcohol and Drug History Society, the University of Guelph's College of Arts and History Department, and for the labor provided by the anonymous reviewers.Several of the articles focus on attempts by colonial authorities to regulate the sale and production of drugs. Ian Tyrrell examines American efforts to control alcohol and opium in the Philippines. Missionary and temperance groups lobbied hard to have the United States (US) adopt strict controls on opium. These controls provided the U.S. with the moral authority to pursue opium regulation internationally and to strengthen ties with China. By contrast, the lobbyists assumed a pragmatic position towards alcohol and were satisfied by the administration's efforts to control the number of drinking establishments through licensing. Simon Heap examines the difficulties that the British colonial government in Nigeria had in enforcing the ban on local homemade gin, or ogogoro. Import figures of sugar make it clear that illicit distilling was widely practiced despite British efforts to eradicate it. In a similar vein, Ashley Wright's article on colonial Burma demonstrates how British policies from 1826 to 1881 were rife with contradictions and inconsistencies. In pursuit of stable and profitable colonial rule, British opium legislation treated the ethnic groups in Burma differently from one another.Two articles examine interactions between the international drug trade and local communities. …

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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