MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2132570041 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.100187

Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a new Canadian practice guideline

2010· review· en· W2132570041 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Andrea D Furlan, Robert F. Reardon, Clarence Weppler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of OntarioInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcMaster University
KeywordsInternalizationCCR5 receptor antagonistMaravirocPotencyEntry inhibitorAllosteric regulationPharmacologyPeripheral blood mononuclear cellChemokine receptor CCR5BlockadeImmunologyReceptorMedicineChemokineViral entryBiologyChemokine receptorHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Internal medicineViral replicationIn vitroVirusBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations179
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology→French-language works237,207→