MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389586189 · doi:10.52922/ti214174

Prescription opioid use among Australian police detainees

2018· book· en· W4389586189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tom Sullivan, Andrew Ticehurst

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Institute of Criminology eBooks · 2018
Typebook
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical prescriptionBuprenorphineMedicinePrescription Drug MisuseOpioidLaw enforcementFamily medicinePopulationAddictionPrescription drugQuarter (Canadian coin)Medical emergencyPsychiatryOpioid use disorderEnvironmental healthPharmacologyPolitical scienceGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prescription opioid diversion and use for non-medical purposes is a growing problem linked to crime and addiction. While offenders are more likely than the general Australian population to use prescription drugs for non-medical purposes, relatively little is known about the types of prescription opioids they use and their patterns of use. Identifying the extent and nature of prescription opioid use among police detainees may assist law enforcement agencies and healthcare providers to allocate resources more effectively. This bulletin draws on data from the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) program collected in January and February 2016. One-quarter of detainees reported prescription opioid use in the last 12 months and almost a fifth engaged in non-medical use of these drugs. The most commonly reported opioid was buprenorphine, and opioids were most commonly obtained from a family member or friend or purchased from a street dealer. About four in 10 users had used more than one type of prescription opioid in the past 12 months, and most had also used other illicit drugs.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Institute of Criminology eBooksSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207