MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078113617 · doi:10.1300/j069v24n01_04

Policy Changes and the Methadone Maintenance Treatment System for Opioid Dependence in Ontario, 1996 to 2001

2005· article· en· W2078113617 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carol Strıke, Karen Urbanoski, Benedikt Fischer, David C. Marsh, Margaret Millson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Addictive Diseases · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthVancouver Coastal HealthHealth Sciences CentreProvidence Health CareUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethadoneMethadone maintenanceOpiateMedicineCensusDescriptive statisticsOpioidEmergency medicineFamily medicinePsychiatryEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Until recently, the availability of methadone treatment in Ontario, Canada was limited. In 1996, policy changes were introduced to increase the availability of treatment. The 5-year impact of these policy changes is assessed. METHODS: For these census data, descriptive statistics were used to examine changes in the patient and provider populations over time using data from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Methadone Maintenance Registry of Patients and the Registry of Methadone Prescribing Physicians. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2001, the total number of clients in treatment increased substantially from: 1595 to 7787. Over this time period, the number of physicians prescribing methadone increased from 60 to 161. INTERPRETATION: Policy changes resulted in substantial increases in the patient and provider populations across Ontario. However, the estimated low proportion of opiate users in treatment indicates that more efforts are needed to address the potential demand for treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Addictive DiseasesSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207