MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403759659 · doi:10.1080/01639625.2024.2418451

Why Don’t You Want My Money: A Study of the Acceptance of Cryptocurrencies in Online Cannabis Markets

2024· article· en· W4403759659 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeviant Behavior · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryptocurrencyCannabisPsychologyBusinessInternet privacyComputer securityAdvertisingSocial psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drug trafficking is a crime that is constantly renewing and adapting to new technological advances. With the emergence of cryptocurrencies, many offenders have incorporated this technology in the development of their criminal activities. It is usually assumed that characteristics of this virtual currency such as its security and anonymity could favor criminality. This paper studies the acceptance of cryptocurrencies in online drug markets in Canada. The results show that most marketplaces refuse cryptocurrency as a form of payment. Furthermore, they suggest that this acceptance is based on criteria of business improvement and customer acquisition, with the market’s need to take advantage of the cryptocurrency’s features being less important. Merchants do not consider their use necessary to protect the development of their criminal activity and therefore most of them do not intend to accept them in the future. The extended TAM has shown to be valuable in elucidating conclusions regarding the acceptance of cryptocurrency in this area.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · 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