Cannabis Use Among Aboriginal Youth in the Non-Aboriginal Child Protection Services System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social, cultural and political contexts of vulnerability need to be considered in defining, understanding, and reducing substance abuse among maltreated youth with an Aboriginal background (MacNeil, 2008; Tatz, 1999). Aboriginal cultures tend to incorporate an ideology of collectivism that manifests in shared childrearing responsibilities within aboriginal families and communities (e.g., Dilworth-Anderson & Marshall, 1996). As such, Aboriginal children may identify with multiple and equally important attachment figures, and be more accepting of multiple caring adult guardians who can direct them away from risky behaviour (Christensen & Manson, 2001). We examined the relationship between cannabis use and reported identification with a caseworker among youth-identified Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal adolescents randomly drawn from the active caseload of a large urban non-Aboriginal Child Protection Services (CPS) system. While an Aboriginal-specific child welfare agency exists in this catchment area, youth need to be identified as Aboriginal to be involved in that system and some youth with Aboriginal heritage inevitably end up in non-Aboriginal CPS agencies. There were no significant differences in rates of maltreatment, trauma symptomatology, or overall cannabis use between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth in this study. However, Aboriginal youth who reported a more negative (i.e., low) identification with their caseworker were five times more likely to use cannabis in the past 12 months compared to Aboriginal youth who reported a more positive (i.e., medium-high) identification with their caseworker. These results suggest that having a moderate-to-high positive identification with caseworker may be a protective factor in regard to abstinence from cannabis use among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth in the non-Aboriginal CPS system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".