Psychosocial factors explaining drug users’ intention to use a new syringe at each injection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beyond the risk of HIV and HVC transmission associated with needle sharing, re-using one's own syringe constitutes an additional risk for injection drug users (IDUs). This practice can lead to serious infections such as cellulitis and endocarditis. In order better to target interventions promoting the adoption of this behaviour, this study attempts to identify factors associated with IDUs’ intention always to use a new syringe. The Theory of Planned Behaviour was applied in the development of the questionnaire administered to 117 IDUs during an interview. Over a period of 1 week, 35.7% of respondents failed to consistently use new syringes and only 39% of the entire sample indicated a firm intention to adopt this behaviour. A regression analysis demonstrated that perceived behavioural control and attitude predicted intention. Results indicate that interventions should serve primarily to help IDUs recognize the advantages of adopting this behaviour and develop skills to overcome certain obstacles.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 it