Corrigendum to “Incremental expenditures attributable to daily dispensation and witnessed ingestion for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia: 2014–20”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nosyk B, Kurz M, Guerra-Alejos BC, Piske M, Dale L, Min JE. Incremental expenditures attributable to daily dispensation and witnessed ingestion for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia: 2014–20. Addiction. 2023;118(7):1376–1380. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16160 In the “Acknowledgements” section, the text “This work was funded by a Health Canada Substance Use and Addictions Program grant no. 1819-HQ-000036. We would like to thank Patrick Day (Pharmaceuticals Analytics, Government of British Columbia) for his consultation and contributions to the conceptualization of this article. All inferences, opinions and conclusions drawn in this study are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or policies of the Data Steward(s).” was missing a funding source. This should have read: “This work was funded by a Health Canada Substance Use and Addictions Program (grant no. 1819-HQ-000036) and the National Institutes on Drug Abuse (NIDA grant no. R01DA050629). We would like to thank Patrick Day (Pharmaceuticals Analytics, Government of British Columbia) for his consultation and contributions to the conceptualization of this article. All inferences, opinions and conclusions drawn in this study are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or policies of the Data Steward(s).” We apologize for this error.
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 | 0.003 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.216 | 0.074 |
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".