The Canadian Recreational Drug Use Survey: Aims, Methods and First Results
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
In late 2006, pilot research was initiated in two western Canadian sites (Vancouver and Victoria) to systematically monitor patterns and trends in three specific illicit drug user populations: club and rave party attendees, adolescent street involved injection and non-injection drug users, and adult injection drug users. These sentinel groups were selected because of elevated rates of alcohol and other drug use within these populations and contexts, and the high levels of associated risks and harms. Drawing from international monitoring and surveillance systems, novel research instruments were developed for each population and were administered in face-to-face interviews at each study site. This paper presents an overview of the broad research methodology for the “high risk” monitoring research as well as select findings for the “club drug” sample. The piloted research design yielded high quality data, particularly in relation to recent patterns of drug use behaviour (items on drug use “yesterday” and “last weekend”). The success of these novel items highlights the value of the present study and its relevance for similar studies across the country.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it