MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411928084 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.3766

Medication Utilization at a Provincial Remand Centre.

2025· article· en· W4411928084 on OpenAlex
Caitlin Olatunbosun, Kory Sloan, Laura Miskimins, Hazel Gabert, Rekha Jabbal

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Health in Brazil
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemand (court procedure)MedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Evaluation of medication utilization highlights health needs and facilitates rational drug use in a population. Data on medication utilization in correctional facilities are limited. Objective: To describe the types and volumes of medications used at a provincial remand centre, by drug schedule and therapeutic classification. Methods: test. Results: Of 8772 persons admitted to the remand centre during the study period, 6296 (71.8%) had medication orders. Of these, 5446 (86.5%) had orders for over-the-counter medications, 5591 (88.8%) for prescription medications, and 2513 (39.9%) for narcotics. Patients 40 years of age or younger had proportionally more orders for narcotic medications. The therapeutic classes with the highest proportions of patients were those for treating mental health problems, substance use disorder, pain, constipation, and infectious diseases. Conclusions: Most patients in this corrections facility were receiving medications. Utilization trends specific to the corrections setting should be considered to support patient care.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.287 · 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