MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2610826131 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxx018

Le cannabis et les enfants et adolescents canadiens

2017· article· fr· W2610826131 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christina N Grant, Richard E. Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCannabisPsychologyPolitical scienceHumanitiesPsychiatryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’usage du cannabis, la drogue illicite la plus consommée dans le monde, est fréquent chez les adolescents canadiens. La consommation de cannabis à l’adolescence peut provoquer des modifications fonctionnelles et structurelles du cerveau en développement et induire une atteinte cérébrale. Dans ce groupe d’âge, la consommation de marijuana s’associe fortement à la dépendance au cannabis et à d’autres troubles de l’usage d’une substance, à l’adoption et au maintien du tabagisme, à l’augmentation des troubles de santé mentale, y compris la dépression, l’anxiété et la psychose, à une perturbation du développement neurologique et à un déclin cognitif ainsi qu’à une diminution de la performance scolaire et des réalisations au cours de la vie. Le taux de soins médicaux aigus et d’hospitalisations chez les jeunes enfants qui ont consommé involontairement du cannabis est en hausse. Compte tenu du débat en cours sur la réglementation du cannabis au Canada, l’examen attentif des preuves de ses effets sur la santé et la mise en place de mécanismes de protection deviennent des priorités absolues en santé publique.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→