Resguardar nuestra incerteza acerca de la incertidumbre: Debates acerca de la interculturalidad y la comunicación
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
While the scientific and medical communities continue to be divided on the therapeutic benefits and risks of cannabis use, anecdotal evidence from medical users themselves suggests that using cannabis is indeed improving their quality of life by alleviating their pain and discomfort. Notwithstanding the benefits anecdotally claimed by these medical users and the existence of some scientific studies confirming their claims, criminal drug laws in all Australian and most United States jurisdictions continue to prohibit the possession, cultivation and supply of cannabis even for medical purposes. However, in contrast to Australia and most parts of the United States, the medical use of cannabis has been legal in Canada for about a decade. This article reviews these differing legal and regulatory approaches to accommodating the medical use of cannabis (namely, marijuana) as well as some of the challenges involved in legalising it for medical purposes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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