The International Drug Control Regime: A Case for Regime Theory and Issue Salience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilizing regime theory and the concept of issue salience, this study aims to show how the resilience of an agenda item can contribute to a change in an international security regime. The International Drug Control Regime's (IDCR) conventions and principles, rules and norms have been continuously contested over the past years. Several countries (Canada, Uruguay and some U.S. states) have moved forward with the legalisation of the recreational and medicinal use of cannabis, one of the drugs the regime has classified as 'highly dangerous', citing security, human rights and their citizen's preferences to explain their unilateral decision at the expense of the IDCR. The cannabis debate has become a salient issue in the IDCR, demonstrating patterns of change like internal contradictions, underlying structures of power and exogenous forces. This study will rely on a theoretical approach supported by a within-case historical analysis of the IDCR between 2009-2020, as well as discourse and documentary methods to assess how the salience of the cannabis debate to the regime's member-states can contribute to the possibility of a regime shift or change.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".