OR14-3 * OPIOID SUBSTITUTION TREATMENT: FROM LAW TO CLINICAL PRACTICE AND VICE VERSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. On the edge of the «Third Francophone Conference on the Treatment of Opioid Addiction», the Neuchatel Institute of Health Law compared regulations for opioid substitution treatment (OST) in Switzerland, France, Canada, Belgium and Tunisia. Most standards described appear to be linked to a historic repressive framework. Reference to the right to health as defined by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (general comment 14), appear to be absent or unclear. We present the rational for creating an interdisciplinary panel from the concerned countries, in order to prepare recommendations about how a regulative system of OST should be based on scientific evidence and right to health. Method. Following a literature review identifying barriers to best practice from an addiction medicine point of view, a DELFI technique will identify the domains requiring removal or implementation of regulations, as a priority. Results and Conclusion. Based on the report of comparative law cited above, following areas need to be considered: access to care and free choice to treatment; the articulation of different laws; conditions for authorisation; concerned substances and products; personal conditions posed to patients and professionals; requirements and limitations surrounding substitution treatment itself; the terms of ending or interruption; the protection of personal data.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".