The State of Opioid Agonist Therapy in Canada 20 Years after Federal Oversight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opioid agonist therapy was introduced in Canada in 1959 with the use of methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence. The regulation of methadone was the responsibility of Health Canada until 1995, when oversight was transferred to the provincial health systems. During the more than 20 years since the federal health authority transferred oversight of methadone to the provincial level, methadone programming has evolved differently in every province. The landscape of opioid dependence treatment is varied across the country, with generally increasing treatment capacity in all provinces and dramatic increases in some. Each province has an independent methadone program with differing policies, contingency management strategies, laboratory monitoring policies, and delivery methods. Treatment options have increased, with buprenorphine- and heroin-assisted treatment becoming available to limited degrees. Despite this, access remains a challenge in many parts of the country (particularly rural and remote areas) because the demand for treatment has increased even more rapidly than the capacity. Although treatment access remains a priority in many jurisdictions, there is also a need to attend to treatment quality as treatment access expands, including integration with addiction counselling, primary care, and mental health care. As well, coordinated monitoring and reporting of treatment need, quality, and delivery are required; implementing a national policy to promote planning would have tremendous value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".