Exploratory Factor Analysis and Validation Study of the Lifetime Severity Index for Cocaine, Spanish Version (LSI-C-Spanish)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to do an exploratory factor analysis and to examine the criterion-related and discriminant validity of the Lifetime Severity Index for Cocaine (LSI-C), Spanish version. A sample of 171 outpatients from 10 drug centers in Spain participated in the study. We conducted the factor analysis with orthogonal rotation and examined correlations between the LSI-C total score and criterion variables as well as the score obtained by a quality of life measure. The factor analysis revealed 2 principal factors that explain 65.8% of the variance. Lower LSI-C scores were associated with taking medication, receiving social help, using cocaine fewer than 30 times during the previous 6 months, and with better scores on quality of life measures. Higher LSI-C scores were associated with unstable housing, overdose, hospitalization, cocaine consumption more than 100 times during the previous 6 months, and more years of drug consumption. The LSI-C Spanish version shows acceptable criterion-related and discriminant validity.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".