Response to Commentaries: new data sources for understanding cannabis markets.
Response to Commentaries: new data sources for understanding cannabis markets.
复制标题
对评论的回应：了解大麻市场的新数据源。
DOI：
10.1111/add.14051
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Midgette,Greg
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Smart,Rosanna;Caulkins,JonathanP;Kilmer,Beau;Davenport,Steven;Midgette,Greg
当前作者对Beatriz H. Carlin（见记录2017-50152-007）和Jason威廉姆斯等人(see记录2017-50152-008）在原始文章上（见记录2017-29462-001）。作者感谢卡里尼和威廉姆斯等人的评论。作者同意所有这些。Carlini观察到，我们记录的变化只是大麻行业实践中一系列创新的一个方面。合法化的一个神话是，事情会或多或少地保持像以前一样，但没有逮捕。相反，使用产业组织文献中的语言，一个行业的“结构，行为和绩效”是由其环境塑造的。这篇文章探讨了一种新的数据源的潜在效用，威廉姆斯等人正确地观察到数据有局限性，应该加以改进。这与大数据分析时代的一个反复出现的主题有关。与大型行政数据集相比，科学家为研究目的收集的“传统”数据往往“更干净”，具有更大的结构有效性，并在不同管辖区和不同时间提供更大的可比性;用户调查是一个典型的例子。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2018阿帕，保留所有权利）
Reply by current authors to the comments made by Beatriz H. Carlin (see record 2017-50152-007) & Jason Williams et al.(see record 2017-50152-008) on the original article (see record 2017-29462-001). Authors thank Carlini and Williams et al. for their comments. Authors agree with all of them. Carlini observes that the changes we document are just one dimension of a suite of innovations in cannabis industry practice. One myth of legalization is that things would remain more or less as before, but without the arrests. Instead, using language from the industrial organization literature, the ‘structure, conduct and performance’of an industry is shaped by its environment. This paper advertises the potential utility of a novel data source, and Williams et al. rightly observe that the data have limitations and should be improved. This relates to a recurring theme in the age of big data analytics. Compared to large administrative data sets,‘traditional’data collected by scientists for research purposes tend to be ‘cleaner’, have greater construct validity and offer greater comparability across jurisdictions and over time; surveys of users are a paradigmatic example.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)