How do school disciplinary approaches and student perceptions of school support relate to youth cannabis use? A cross-sectional analysis of Year 7 (2017-2018) of the COMPASS study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In the school year immediately following cannabis legalization in Canada, the objectives of this thesis were: (1) to examine the disciplinary approaches being used in secondary schools for students who violate school substance use policies, and associations with cannabis use among youth; and (2) to investigate youth perceptions of school support for the prevention and cessation of substance use, if perceptions vary by school disciplinary approaches, and whether they are associated student cannabis use. Methods: School- and student-level survey data from Year 7 (2018/2019) of the COMPASS study were used, including 74,501 grade 9-12 students attending 136 secondary schools. A framework for classifying schools into disciplinary approach styles was established based on school-reported response measures used for student first-offence violations of the school cannabis policies. Multilevel logistic regression models examined associations between school disciplinary approach styles, student perceptions of school support for the prevention/cessation of student substance use, and student cannabis use. Results: Despite all schools reporting always/sometimes using a progressive discipline approach, punitive consequences (suspension, alert police) remain prevalent as first-offence options, with fewer schools indicating supportive responses (counselling; cessation/educational programs). Most schools were classified as using Authoritarian and Authoritative approaches, followed by Neglectful and Permissive/Supportive styles. No disciplinary approach styles were associated with cannabis use. Students attending schools classified as Permissive/Supportive (high supportive; low punitive) had a higher likelihood of perceiving their school as supportive for substance use prevention/cessation than their peers at Authoritarian (high punitive; low supportive) schools. Students who perceived their school as “supportive” were less likely to report current cannabis use than their peers who perceived their school as unsupportive. Conclusions: This study is the first to classify school discipline approach styles using school-level measures. Unlike previous studies using classifications based on student perceptions, results do not support direct associations between school disciplinary styles and student cannabis use. Greater use of supportive approaches (e.g., counselling referrals, educational programs) over punitive consequences may promote student perceptions of school supportiveness for the cessation/prevention of substance use. Further research is needed to explore additional factors promoting student perceptions of school supportiveness, given associations with cannabis use.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».