MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618454638 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.170555

Cannabis legislation fails to protect Canada’s youth

2017· editorial· en· W2618454638 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Diane Kelsall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationCannabisGovernment (linguistics)Public healthPolitical sciencePublic administrationMedicineInternet privacyBusinessComputer securityPublic relationsEnvironmental healthLawPsychiatryComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With tabling of Bill C-45, the federal government has moved one step closer to fulfilling its election promise to legalize the use of cannabis in Canada, despite concerns over the many health risks associated with its use. The purported purpose of the act is to protect public health and safety,[1][1

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0370.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207