MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802116463 · doi:10.31027/odprn.2017.04

Behind the prescriptions: a snapshot of opioid use across all Ontarians

2017· report· en· W2802116463 on OpenAlexafffund
Tara Gomes, Sachin Vidur Pasricha, Diana Martins, Simón Greaves, Mina Tadrous, Dana Bandola, Samantha Singh, Michael J. Paterson, Muhammad Mamdani, David N. Juurlink

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsOntario Drug Policy Research NetworkSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)OpioidData scienceComputer scienceMedicineInternal medicineDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A snapshot of opioid use across all Ontarians Behind the Prescriptions 2 About the ODPRN The Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (ODPRN) is a province-wide network of researchers who provide timely, high quality, drug policy relevant research to decision makers.The ODPRN's core principles are quality, relevance, and timeliness.We conduct research to determine real-world drug utilization, safety, effectiveness, and costs of drugs in Ontario, and have developed partnerships that allow us to engage in cross-provincial comparisons of drug safety and utilization.We are funded to conduct pharmacoepidemiologic and drug policy research as part of an initiative to provide evidence to inform policy at the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC).As such, the ODPRN works closely with the Ontario Public Drug Programs (OPDP), MOHLTC and other stakeholders to select key priority areas and topics for analysis.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207