Adolescent Amphetamine Users in Treatment: Client Profiles and Treatment Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares client profiles of adolescent amphetamine users to those of nonusers and examines the multivariate prediction of posttreatment drug use, criminal, and HIV risk behavior outcomes in the year following their separation from treatment. Data were collected as part of a larger longitudinal study on a sample of 938 adolescents who were admitted to residential therapeutic community drug treatment programs across the eastern United States and Canada from April of 1992 through April of 1994. A subsample of 485 adolescents were reinterviewed one year after their separation from treatment. Findings indicated that amphetamine users tended to be white, older, and have parents with higher education and occupational levels than nonusers. However, they also had more psychopathology, more extensive drug use and criminal histories, and engaged in more HIV-risk behaviors than nonusers. Additionally, amphetamine users tend to come from homes where one or both parents used illicit drugs, drank regularly, or had a mental illness, and they often reported histories of childhood maltreatment. Analyses of the one-year follow-up data indicated that being an amphetamine user was not related to treatment outcome after the client's demographic characteristics, overall drug use severity, and treatment completion were taken into account. Therefore, therapeutic community treatment appears to be an effective means of treating adolescent amphetamine users.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".