P-53 * CRIMINAL HISTORY AND OUTCOME OF OPIATE SUBSTITUTIONS TREATMENT IN CANADIAN METHADONE AND SUBOXONE PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. This study examines outcomes of urine tests in methadone and in suboxone patients and differences in their criminal history. Method. Criminal history data and 10 urine tests for benzodiazepines, cocaine, opiates, and oxycodone were recorded for each of 103 Canadian patients (67 men, 36 women) undergoing opiate substitution treatment: 75.7% were on methadone and 24.3% on suboxone. Those on methadone did not differ from those on suboxone with respect to age (t-test, p = ns) and gender (χ2 test, p = ns). Result. In this sample, (43.3%) had known criminal history, 35.3% were convicted of their crime in a court of law, 31.4% spent time in jail, 10.0% were involved in violent crimes, and 16.0% were charged with driving under influence of alcohol or illicit drugs. Methadone patients did not differ from those on suboxone in their criminal history (χ2 tests, p = ns). Compared to suboxone patients, those on methadone more frequently tested positive for cocaine (t = 2.5, df = 96.2, p < .05) but no significant differences were noted for other illicit substances. Conclusion. Methadone and suboxone patients did not differ in their criminal history. The treatment outcomes of methadone patients were less satisfactory with respect to unclean urine tests for cocaine.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".