MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2413583467

Randomized controlled trial proves effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment in prison.

2003· article· en· W2413583467 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Haig

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonMethadone maintenanceMethadoneOutcome (game theory)Randomized controlled trialMedicinePsychiatryPsychologyCriminologySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study on methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) undertaken by the Correctional Service of Canada in 2001 demonstrated that MMT has a positive impact on release outcome and on institutional behaviour. Now, a new study undertaken in an Australian prison system has demonstrated that MMT also reduces drug use and injection in prisons. The implications of this study are far reaching. They suggest that in all jurisdictions where community-based programs operate, prison-based methadone programs should be introduced or expanded.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→