MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586080515 · doi:10.4045/tidsskr.16.1107

Ny kurs for rusmidler

2017· article· no· W2586080515 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Wahl Blomkvist, Fredrik Eika, Sverre Eika, Maria Mowé, Lowan H. Stewart, Wasim Zahid, Stig Wilhelm Asplin

Bibliographic record

VenueTidsskrift for Den norske legeforening · 2017
Typearticle
Languageno
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society for Vascular Surgery
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kommentar og debattNy kurs for rusmidler 178 -9 Flere internasjonale aktører tenker nytt innenfor rusfeltet.Norske leger, med Legeforeningen i spissen, bør være med på utviklingen.Internasjonalt er ruspolitikken i endring, og forskning har vist at tradisjonelle rusmidler kan benyttes til terapeutiske formål.Begge disse strømningene trekker leger og helsepersonell inn i en ny rolle som aktører på rusfeltet.Helseminister Bent Høie og Hadia Tajik, nestleder i Arbeiderpartiet, har tatt til orde for en omlegging av ruspolitikken (1, 2).Begge ser til Portugals avkriminalisering og kommisjonsordning for erfaring og inspirasjon.Når dagens forbudspolitikk blir dreid mot en skadeforebyggende politikk, vil tiltak som nøktern rusopplysning og utdeling av testsett være aktuelle virkemidler for å beskytte brukerne.Dette vil i så fall være fortsettelsen av en historisk tendens i retning av skadereduserende tiltak (3).Det vil antageligvis også gjøre brukerne mer åpne om sin rusbruk overfor leger og helsepersonell.Det er ønskelig.Samtidig vil det by på nye utfordringer, spesielt siden det ifølge Legeforeningen i 2011 er en «alvorlig mangel på leger med god nok kompetanse på rusfeltet» (4).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5760.461

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTidsskrift for Den norske legeforeningSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207