Normas percibidas por los estudiantes universitarios de enfermería acerca de sus pares y el uso de drogas en Lima, Perú
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Con el objetivo de estimar la diferencia entre las normas percibidas sobre el uso de drogas por los pares y el uso real de drogas entre estudiantes universitarios se efectuó un estudio cuantitativo transversal, basado en una encuesta de 196 estudiantes de enfermería de Lima. Se utilizó un cuestionario que midió la percepción del uso de drogas y el propio uso. La información fue analizada con estadística descriptiva; fue considerando un valor mayor, menor o igual a 10% para establecer la diferencia. Las normas percibidas para alcohol y tabaco fueron mayores de 50%, mientras que para marihuana y cocaína fue de 6%. El 57,7% informó haber usado tabaco, 84,7% alcohol, 2,6% marihuana y 1% cocaína; se encontró que existe sobreestimación sobre el uso de marihuana y cocaína, subestimación para el alcohol, y percepción exacta para el uso de tabaco. Los resultados serán de utilidad para sensibilizar a las autoridades universitarias e para implementar políticas o programas de prevención.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".