MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399685545 · doi:10.1177/07067437241261488

Capacity to Consent to Treatment of Substance Use Disorders at Ontario's Consent and Capacity Board: A Review of Past Reported Decisions

2024· review· en· W4399685545 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tanya S. Hauck, Rachel Goud, Michele Warner, Susan Franchuk, Juveria Zaheer, Vicky Stergiopoulos, Victor M. Tang, Leslie Buckley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformed consentSubstance useInstitutional review boardMental capacityMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capacity to consent to treatment of substance use disorders at Ontario's Consent and Capacity Board: A review of past reported decisions Plain Language Summary Title An Ontario review of legal cases which have considered patients' ability to consent to substance use treatments

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.552
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.040 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→