MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7106319736 · doi:10.7910/dvn/flh5hu

Uruguay Cannabis Market Dataset: CBDT Framework Natural Experiment Validation (2017-2025)

2025· dataset· W7106319736 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Dataverse · 2025
Typedataset
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural experimentDocumentationCannabisStatistical inferenceInferenceData qualityQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset documents Uruguay's cannabis market from 2017-2025, capturing a natural experiment where legal cannabis quality (THC potency) systematically increased from 3% to 20% while price remained constant at approximately $1.40/gram. Key Finding: When Uruguay increased legal cannabis from 9% to 15% THC in December 2022, sales increased 84% (1,774 to 3,258 kg) in one year while price remained constant, isolating quality as the primary driver of legal market adoption. The data validates the Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement (CBDT) Framework across four distinct quality eras. Statistical validation shows the framework explains 92.9% of variance in adoption rates (R² = 0.9288, p = 0.036) with mean absolute error of 2.0 percentage points. Dataset Contents: 6 CSV files with complete market data (registrations, sales, THC levels, framework scores) Era-level analysis (4 periods: 2017, 2018-2021, 2022-2023, 2024-2025) Time-series data (14 observations across 8 years) Statistical validation results (regression analysis, confidence intervals) Complete source documentation (11 independent sources cross-verified) Python replication code for all analyses Related Publications: The Silent Majority 420 (2025). Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement (CBDT) Framework: A Behavioral-Utility Heuristic for Illicit-to-Legal Market Transition. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17593077 The Silent Majority 420 (2025). CBDT Framework Canadian Validation: Cross-National Evidence of Cultural Homogeneity Effects. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17611991 Primary Data Sources: IRCCA (Instituto de Regulación y Control del Cannabis, Uruguay), European Union Drugs Agency (2018), London School of Economics Journal of Illicit Economies and Development (2025). Replication: All analyses fully reproducible using provided CSV files and Python scripts. Complete methodology documented in DATASET_README.md included in files.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.022

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 head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard Dataverse→French-language works237,207→