Uso de drogas ilícitas e perspectivas críticas de familiares e pessoas próximas, na cidade do Rio de Janeiro, Zona Norte, Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the partial results of a multicenter, qualitative study, which involved seven Latin-American countries and Canada. The results presented refer to Northern Rio de Janeiro (city), Brazil. The objective of the study was to describe the perspective of relatives/acquaintances of illicit drug users about protective and risk factors, prevention initiatives, treatment services, and legal aspects regarding illicit drugs. Interviews were performed with 99 individuals, who reported being affected by their relationship with an illicit drug user (relative or acquaintance), approaching their perspectives regarding the key-domains. Most participants were women (73.7%); relatives who used drugs were mostly men (78.2%); the most consumed drug was marijuana (77.8%). The highlighted protective factor was having recreational-sports activities in the community (88.9%), and the risk factor was curiosity for trying something new (94.4%). The main treatment services were Church Groups (51.5%), and participants stated that laws should be more punitive (82.8%). In conclusion, this information is essential to fight against drug use/abuse, showing that there is a need for actions that consider different perspectives at different levels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".