MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2604659371 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.732899

Clarification from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC on commentary about limitations of the CDC guideline for prescribing opioids

2017· letter· en· W2604659371 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Heidi M. Oetter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfusionGuidelineStatement (logic)MedicineDisease controlFamily medicineMEDLINEPsychologyPathologyPsychoanalysisPolitical scienceVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The college would like to address several inaccuracies in a commentary that appeared in CMAJ in December 2016.[1][1] The following statement reflects confusion about two separate events: > There is already preliminary evidence that in British Columbia, where the CDC [US Centers for Disease Control

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0780.084
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.009

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→