Conceptualization and Scope of Emergent Drugs in Full Progression in this Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world of the drugs is in constant growth and transformation. They incorporate to those that have existed from remote times, more and new, but even more dangerous and more addictive, and simultaneously multiple and new concepts are formulated that hinder its demarcation and learning. Objectives: To debate the precision of the main concepts on emergent or equivalent drugs, emitted in the last 10 years and, to contain novel aspects of the reach. Material and methods: It was made during the first semester of 2017, in Havana, Cuba, an orderly revision of information related with the concepts on emergent drugs and their reach, by means of electronic searches in libraries of magazines national doctors and indexed foreigners, as well as in texts, in the last 10 years. Development: When subjecting to the analysis these concepts, it was appreciated that they were restricted and imprecise that didn't pay to the prevention and that could generate until confusion. One kept in mind the reach of the novelty of these substances, and when paying attention to the great quantity of compounds that were not contemplated in precedent definitions, it was emitted, for the author with integrative premeditation, one new. onclusions: Drugs growth that circulate in this Century has been so dynamic, enormous, precipitate and excessively quickly, diverse for origin, composition and geographical unequal distribution that have been hindered its conceptualization, where the new, its reach, turns drugs riskier and unknowns, also invasive and additives, that allowed to contribute a comprehensive as a new whole concept.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".