Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adequate cotreatment of chronic pain and addiction disorders is a complex and challenging problem for health care professionals. There is great potential for cannabinoids in the treatment of pain; however, the increasing prevalence of recreational cannabis use has led to a considerable increase in the number of people seeking treatment for cannabis use disorders. Evidence that cannabis abuse liability is higher than previously thought suggests that individuals with a history of substance abuse may be at an increased risk after taking cannabinoids, even for medicinal purposes. Smoked cannabis is significantly more reinforcing than other cannabinoid administration methods. In addition, it is clear that the smoked route of cannabis delivery is associated with a number of adverse health consequences. Thus, there is a need for pharmaceutical-grade products of known purity and concentration using delivery systems optimized for safety. Another factor that needs to be considered when assessing the practicality of prescribing medicinal cannabinoids is the difficulty in differentiating illicit from prescribed cannabinoids in urine drug testing. Overall, a thorough assessment of the risk/benefit profile of cannabinoids as they relate to a patient's substance abuse history is suggested.
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 | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".