Illicit drug use among Canadian University undergraduates.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine rates and patterns of illicit drug use among Canadian university undergraduates, to compare these rates with those for non-university samples, and to describe drug-use trends among university undergaduates in the province of Ontario between 1988 and 1998. A national mail survey was carried out based on stratified 2-stage sample design. The sample comprised 7,800 Canadian undergraduates from 16 universities (52% of eligible respondents). Approximately 47.5% reported use of illicit drug durning their life, 29.6% in the previous 12 months, and 18.7% since the beginning of the academic year. Cannabis was by far the most widley used drug (47.0%, 28.7%, and18.2%, respectively). Many of the gender and regional associations were similar to those found in general-populations surveys. Comparisons to non-university peers did not indicate elevated rates among university students. Among Ontario university undergraduates the use of cannabis, hallucinogens, methamphetamines, crack, and herion remained stable between 1988 and 1998. The use of cocaine declined from 4.8% to 1.7%. Rates of illicit drug use were not appreciably higher than those among their non-university peers. Other public-health issues, such as heavy drinking and poor mental health, override those related to illicit drug use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".