MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W153432556

Alcohol and illicit drug dependence.

2004· article· en· W153432556 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Tjepkema

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)ConfoundingMedicineLogistic regressionPopulationComorbidityEnvironmental healthPsychiatryIllicit drugMental healthDemographyRisk factorNational Comorbidity SurveyAlcohol dependenceDrugAlcoholInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This article estimates the prevalence of alcohol and illicit drug dependence among Canadians aged 15 or older Comorbidity with depression is examined. DATA SOURCES: The data are from the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health and Well-being and the National Population Health Survey. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Cross-tabulations were used to estimate the prevalence of alcohol and illicit drug dependence by selected characteristics. Multiple logistic regression models were used to determine if associations persisted after controlling for potentially confounding factors, and to test temporal relationships between frequent heavy drinking and depression. MAIN RESULTS: In 2002, an estimated 641,000 people (2.6% of the household population aged 15 or older) were dependent on alcohol, and 194,000 (0.8%), on illicit drugs. These people had elevated levels of depression compared with the general population. Heavy drinking more than once a week was a risk factor for a new episode of depression, and depression was a risk factor for new cases of frequent heavy drinking.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations49
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207