Compulsory Substance Abuse Treatment: An Overview of Recent Findings and Issues
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An overview of research trends and issues in the area of compulsory substance abuse treatment is presented, using a sample of 170 English-language articles obtained from a search of 4 databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, supplemented by a manual search). About half (51%) of these articles were non-empirical (i.e. literature reviews, policy proposals, legal and ethical commentaries on compulsory treatment). A subsample of empirical studies published since 1988 (n = 71) was coded to summarize research trends in relation to 3 key issues: (1) how compulsory treatment was studied (country of origin; type of compulsory treatment; treatment population), (2) the evidence base for judging effectiveness of compulsory treatment (research design; sampling; type, timing and results of outcome measures), and (3) the relationship between compulsory treatment and coercion (measurement strategies). Directions for future research are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it