MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801787533 · doi:10.1097/yco.0000000000000432

Reducing the health risks derived from exposure to addictive substances

2018· review· en· W2801787533 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Anderson, Antoni Gual, Jürgen Rehm

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychiatry · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNicotineLegalizationEnvironmental healthCannabisHarmAddictionTobacco harm reductionBusinessDrugAlcoholMedicinePharmacologyToxicologyPublic economicsPsychiatryPsychologyTobacco useEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the health risks due to exposure to alcohol, illegal drugs and nicotine and how these risks might be reduced. RECENT FINDINGS: In 2016, worldwide, alcohol, illegal drugs and nicotine were responsible for some 10 million deaths. There is evolutionary and biological evidence that humans are predisposed to consuming alcohol, illegal drugs and nicotine - present-day problems are caused by high levels of potency, exposure and drug delivery systems. The two priority substances for action are alcohol and smoked cigarettes; their exposure can be reduced by price increases, setting minimum prices per product, regulating a shift form smoked cigarettes to electronic nicotine delivery devices and, theoretically, reducing the ethanol content of existing beverages. Legalization of cannabis requires a strict regulatory framework. SUMMARY: Purposeful policy can reduce the harm done by alcohol, illegal drugs and nicotine. In particular, policy to reduce exposure to alcohol requires considerable strengthening.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.468
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
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychiatrySame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207