Ready Access to Illicit Drugs among Youth and Adult Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current drug-control strategies in Canada focus funding and resources predominantly on drug law enforcement, often at the expense of preventive, treatment, and harm reduction efforts. This study aimed to examine the availability of the most commonly used substances in Vancouver, Canada after the implementation of such strategies. METHODS: Using data from two large cohorts of drug-using youth and adults in Vancouver from the calendar year 2007, we assessed perceived availability of heroin, crack, cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and marijuana. RESULTS: Compared to youth (n= 330), a greater proportion of adults (n= 1,160) reported immediate access (ie, within 10 minutes) to heroin (81.0% vs. 55.9%, p < .001), crack (90.4% vs. 69.3%, p < .001), and cocaine (83.7% vs. 61.1%, p < .001). Conversely, larger proportions of youth reported immediate access to crystal methamphetamine (62.8% vs. 39.4%, p < .001) and marijuana (88.4% vs. 73.2%, p < .001) compared to adult users. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of differences in illicit drug availability by age, all drugs are readily accessed in Vancouver despite drug law enforcement efforts. This includes drugs that are frequently injected and place users at risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and transmission of other blood-borne disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".