MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905291051 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(18)30232-9

The opioid death crisis in Canada: crucial lessons for public health

2018· review· en· W2905291051 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Benedikt Fischer, Michelle Pang, Mark Tyndall

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersDepartment of Psychiatry, University of TorontoBritish Columbia Centre for Disease ControlFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of AucklandSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPublic healthMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)OpioidMEDLINE2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthVirologyNursingInternal medicineDiseaseOutbreakLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A chief coroner investigation in British Columbia, Canada, identified an “inordinately high number” of drug-related deaths related to a “very real and very serious” drug problem, and recommended unconventional measures to reduce mortality.1 This occurred 25 years ago, in 1993, the number of drug-related deaths in British Columbia peaked at 330.1 Today, the epidemic of primarily opioid-related deaths in Canada is far worse than it was a quarter of a century ago. In 2017, there were 1473 drug-related deaths in British Columbia and 3996 in Canada in total—an increase of more than 400% from 1993—and these deaths now account for substantially greater mortality than motor-vehicle accidents and other leading causes of premature deaths.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0190.012
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0140.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.004

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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.142 · 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

Citations128
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207