MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018378523 · doi:10.1055/s-2003-38098

Ist Suchtprävention generell wirtschaftlich?

2003· article· de· W2018378523 on OpenAlexaff
Jürgen Rehm

Bibliographic record

VenueSuchttherapie · 2003
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Medical Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePsychologyGynecologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prävention wird oft per se als positive gesundheitspolitische Maßnahme im Suchtbereich betrachtet. An verschiedenen Beispielen wird aufgezeigt, dass große präventive Maßnahmen im Suchtbereich oft nicht den gewünschten Erfolg zeigen, in Einzelfällen sogar das Gegenteil dessen bewirken können, was intendiert war. Deshalb wird gefordert, die üblichen Standards der „evidence-based medicine” auch für Prävention anzuwenden und präventive Aktivitäten im Suchtbereich hinsichtlich Effektivität und Kosteneffektivität zu evaluieren. Gegenargumente zu dieser Forderung werden diskutiert.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0170.021
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuchttherapieSame topicHealth and Medical StudiesFrench-language works237,207