MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611859004 · doi:10.3928/00485713-20061201-05

Sleep in the Substance-using Population

2006· article· en· W2611859004 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Annals · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAddictionPsychiatrySubstance abusePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<P>The effect of any psychoactive substance on an individual’s sleep will depend on whether that substance is a stimulant, depressant, or has other effects on the brain. A schema is portrayed in. The effect of withdrawal from the substance generally will be opposite to the intoxication effects. Psychoactive substances are classified as sedative hypnotics, stimulants, opioids, hallucinogens, and arylcyclohexylamines.</P> <h4>ABOUT THE AUTHORS</h4> <P>Paul G. Casola, MD, PhD, FRCPC, is a Psychiatrist with the Salvation Army Harbour Light Centre, and Lecturer, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. R. Jeffrey Goldsmith, MD, DFAPA, is a Psychiatrist with the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dual Diagnosis Services, and Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cincinnati. Jeff Daiter, MD, CCFP, FCFP, is Chief Medical Director, Ontario Addiction Treatment Centres, Oak Ridges Medical Centre, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada. Michael Verenbut, MD, CCFP, FCFP, is Chief Medical Director, Ontario Addiction Treatment Centres, and Assistant Profressor, University of Toronto, Oak Ridges Medical Center.</P> <P>Address correspondence to: Paul G. Casola, MD, PhD, FRCPC, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; or email <a href="mailto:paul.casola@utoronto.ca">paul.casola@utoronto.ca</a>.</P> <P>The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.</P>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric AnnalsSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207