↓ Skip to main content

Harms caused by China's 1906–17 opium suppression intervention

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Drug Policy, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Harms caused by China's 1906–17 opium suppression intervention
Published in
International Journal of Drug Policy, April 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.03.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Windle

Abstract

Between 1906 and 1917 China (under the Imperial and then Republican regimes) enacted a highly effective intervention to suppress the production of opium. Evidence from British Foreign Office records suggest that the intervention was centred, in many areas, upon a highly repressive incarnation of law enforcement in which rural populations had their property destroyed, their land confiscated and/or were publically tortured, humiliated and executed. Crops were forcefully eradicated and resistance was often brutally suppressed by the military. As few farmers received compensation or support for alternative livelihood creation the intervention pushed many deeper into poverty. Importantly, the repressive nature of the opium ban appears to have been a contributing factor to the fragmentation of China, highlighting the counter-productivity of repressive interventions to reduce drug crop production.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Librarian 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2022.
All research outputs
#4,102,507
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Drug Policy
#1,284
of 3,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,482
of 212,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Drug Policy
#10
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.