MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206302592 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20210253

Correction: Buprenorphine–naloxone practice and attitudes in 22 Canadian emergency physician groups: a cross-sectional survey

2021· erratum· en· W4206302592 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional study(+)-NaloxoneBuprenorphineFamily medicineMedicinePsychologyOpioidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The title "A cross-sectional survey on buprenorphinenaloxone practice and attitudes in 22 Canadian emergency physician groups: a cross-sectional survey" should have been "Buprenorphine-naloxone practice and attitudes in 22 Canadian emergency physician groups: a cross-sectional survey." Also, the author name "Scheueremeyer" should have been "Scheuermeyer" in the author byline, affiliations and contributors statement.

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)0.116
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.017

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207