MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6958964035 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7500951

The decriminalization of illicit drugs in British Columbia: a national evaluation protocol

2024· other· en· W6958964035 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEgo Development and Educational Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSimon Fraser UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecriminalizationProtocol (science)StakeholderIllicit drugCriminal justiceEconomic Justice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background On January 31st, 2023, the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, was granted a federal exemption allowing adults (aged 18 +) to possess up to 2.5 g of select illicit drugs. The exemption will be in place for three years (2023–2026), marking the first formal decriminalization of illicit drug policy reform in Canada. BC’s decriminalization initiative is premised on several goals. This project seeks to evaluate each of these goals and their individual and combined contributions to determine the overall success of this policy. Methods The following protocol paper provides a detailed outline of a five-year (2022-2027) national evaluation of BC’s decriminalization initiative, as well as the specific objectives, methodologies, and planned analyses for eight interrelated sub-studies that comprise the evaluation. These sub-studies fall under the following five topical areas of research: 1) people who use drugs (PWUD), 2) the police and the criminal justice system, 3) the general public, 4) the health services system, and 5) an economic analysis. Additional research activities may also be explored. Results The overall evaluation and specific sub-study designs were informed by intensive stakeholder engagement. The evaluation was developed in collaboration with an international expert committee who came together to undertake a nominal group technique to decide on the final evaluation design and corresponding logic model. The evaluation will also employ an advisory board and individual sub-study working groups comprised of experts and PWUD who will oversee the development and implementation of the overall evaluation as well as each sub-study. Discussion This evaluation will draw on implementation science research practices to evaluate and understand the full impacts of this novel drug policy experiment. Results will be widely disseminated through manuscripts, reports, presentations, and infographics, which will be adapted and tailored for specific audiences. The protocol identifies several anticipated challenges and limitations. This evaluation’s evidence-based findings will be poised to offer pivotal insights that can shape and refine the discourse on drug policy and will serve as a critical resource for understanding the multifaceted impacts of decriminalization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.6640.005

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.333 · 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