MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158841254 · doi:10.1081/ja-100108429

WHO WORKS IN ADDICTIONS TREATMENT SERVICES? SOME RESULTS FROM AN ONTARIO SURVEY<sup>*</sup>

2001· article· en· W2158841254 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSubstance Use & Misuse · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationAddictionProfessionalizationGeneralizability theoryMedical educationPsychologyProfessional developmentAddictive behaviorNursingMedicinePsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper summarizes results from a survey of staff of specialized addiction treatment agencies in Ontario and includes information on demographic characteristics, education and related issues for those working in different types of agencies. Across all agencies 80% of staff had some sort of post secondary academic qualification and the majority reported taking professional development courses in the previous 12 months. However, only 20% of all respondents were "certified" as either an addictions counsellor or as another type of human service provider. There were differences within and between different agencies, and between respondents with and without administrative/supervisory responsibilities, with respect to education and certification status. Discussion concerns professionalization of the addiction treatment field, preparatory training for work in addictions treatment, and the generalizability of results.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.264 · 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