Intention and Willingness in Understanding Ritalin Misuse Among Iranian Medical College Students: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ritalin misuse can create powerful stimulant effects and serious health risks. The main aim of present study was compared that two cognitive construct (behavioral intention or behavioral willingness) for predicting Ritalin misuse. This cross-sectional study was conducted among 264 Iranian medical college students; participants selected in random sampling, and data were collected by using self-report questionnaire. Data were analyzed by SPSS version 21 at 95% significant level. Our findings showed, the three predictor variables of (1) attitude, (2) subjective norms, and (3) prototype accounted for 29% of the variation in intention and 25% of the variation in willingness to Ritalin misuse. In addition, behavioral intention was a stronger prediction factor compared to willingness for Ritalin misuse, with odds ratio estimate of 1.607 [95% CI: 1.167, 2.213]. There is some support to use the prototype willingness model to design interventions to improve individuals' beliefs that academic goals are achievable without the misuse of Ritalin.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".