Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of the rapidly shifting legislation regarding the legalization of marijuana use, the popular notion seems to be that marijuana is a harmless pleasure, access to which should not be regulated or considered illegal. World Health Organization recommended to delete cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), but to maintain it in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention. The UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided by 27 votes to 25 and with one abstention to follow this recommendation. Тhere is the issue of how much this decision will affect the legalization of marijuana in the world. In the paper are analyzed two legislation of the Anglo-Saxon legal system, which supported this initiative (Canada and USA) and legislation of Euro-Continental legal area (Russia) that did not accept the reclassifying of cannabis from the 1961 Convention. Author has compared the Canadian code with Uruguayan, and the U. S. bill with the Mexican legislation, because Mexican bill does not provide the full legalization of marijuana use. In the Russian Federation, all deeds related to narcotic drugs, which were committed on a significant, large, and an especially large scale, and also all acts coherent to traffic of narcotic drugs, regardless of its scale, are regulated by Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Otherwise, there will be applied an administrative law.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".