MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285117091 · doi:10.7202/1089791ar

Licit Substance Use in Physical Rehabilitation Settings

2022· article· en· W4285117091 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brynne McArthur, Alexandra H. Campbell, Andria Bianchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationHealth careFocus (optics)PsychologyNursingApplied psychologyMedicinePhysical therapyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this commentary is to consider circumstances under which it may be ethical to permit patients to use licit substances in rehabilitation contexts. While the content of this commentary may be transferable to other healthcare spaces, our focus on rehabilitation is based on some important distinctions that exist between rehabilitation and acute care spaces.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0300.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BioethicsSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207