Cognitive Enhancement in Canadian Medical Students
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
BACKGROUND: Cognitive enhancing agents are substances that may augment functions such as memory, attention, concentration, wakefulness, and intelligence. METHODS: An anonymous, online survey containing a series of questions on the actual and hypothetical use of cognitive enhancers was sent via email to 647 medical students across all four years in one Canadian MD program. RESULTS: The response rate was 50% (326/647). Overall, 49 (15%, 95% CI: 11% to 19%) students admitted to non-medical and/or off-label use of one or more pharmaceutical stimulants, of whom 14 (4%, 95% CI: 2% to 6%) had used stimulants within the last year. Senior medical students reported recent use more often than junior students (8% vs. 2%, P = 0.04). Class seniority and male gender were both associated with positive attitudes towards use of these agents; favorable attitudes were associated with recent use of pharmaceutical stimulant and high-caffeine products. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of Canadian medical students have engaged at some point in non-medical and/or off-label use of stimulants for purposes of cognitive enhancement. Male students and those in upper years of the MD program were more likely to have used pharmaceutical stimulants in the last year, and have favorable attitudes concerning use of cognitive-enhancing agents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it