MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520248062 · doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.124

The Challenges of Projecting the Public Health Impacts of Marijuana Legalization in Canada Comment on "Legalizing and Regulating Marijuana in Canada: Review of Potential Economic, Social, and Health Impacts"

2016· letter· en· W2520248062 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie Lake, Thomas Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegalizationPublic healthGovernment (linguistics)LegislationPublic economicsPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthCriminologyBusinessMedicineEconomicsPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent editorial in this journal provides a summary of key economic, social, and public health considerations of the forthcoming legislation to legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana in Canada. As our government plans to implement an evidence-based public health framework for marijuana legalization, we reflect and expand on recent discussions of the public health implications of marijuana legalization, and offer additional points of consideration. We select two commonly cited public concerns of marijuana legalization - adolescent usage and impaired driving - and discuss how the underdeveloped and equivocal body of scientific literature surrounding these issues limits the ability to predict the effects of legalization. Finally, we discuss the potential for some potential public health benefits of marijuana legalization - specifically the potential for marijuana to be used as a substitute to opioids and other risky substance use - that have to date not received adequate attention.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0320.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health Policy and ManagementSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207