MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7111044754 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.30822461

Characterizing the Effects of Kinloch Wellness Ltd. CBZ™

2025· article· W7111044754 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadsetBiometricsSleep (system call)Duration (music)CohortProduct (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the sleep and sleep-related effects of a tincture product containing CBD, CBN, and terpenes: Kinloch Wellness Ltd. CBZ™ - CBN + CBD 900 Apple Cinnamon H2O-Rapid™ Tincture. A multi-modal, dual-component study design was conducted remotely and locally at Zentrela’s laboratory in Hamilton, Ontario. Objective neurophysiological data were collected using Zentrela’s EEG-based Cognalyzer® AI platform, complemented by validated subjective measures including the Drug Effects, Questionnaire (DEQ) and BRUMS test. The Cognalyzer® (a novel artificial intelligence platform developed by Zentrela Inc.) was applied to objectively quantify product effects through EEG signals obtained via a proprietary headset worn during laboratory visits. Across the study cohort (n = 15), results indicate that the investigational product induces acute mood-enhancements, potentially conducive to relaxation and sleep onset. Biometric sleep-tracking data further indicated that investigational product increased the duration of deep sleep (non-REM stage N3). Using EEG, subjective self-reporting, and wearable-based biometric measures, the effects of Kinloch CBZTM are characterized as acutely mood-enhancing and, in the short term, rest-enhancing

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→