MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011156829 · doi:10.5770/cgj.23.424

Canadian Guidelines on Cannabis Use Disorder Among Older Adults

2020· article· en· W3011156829 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geriatrics Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British ColumbiaBruyèreCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of CalgaryCanadian Centre on Substance Use and AddictionHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of Toronto
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMedicineCannabisPsychiatryMental healthSubstance useGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) is an emerging and diverse challenge among older adults. METHODS: The Canadian Coalition for Seniors' Mental Health, with financial support from Health Canada, has produced evidence-based guidelines on the prevention, identification, assessment, and treatment of this form of substance use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults may develop CUD in the setting of recreational and even medical use. Clinicians should remain vigilant for the detection of CUD, and they should be aware of strategies for prevention and managing its emergence and consequences The full version of these guidelines can be accessed at www.ccsmh.ca.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.254 · 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