Social Norms of Alcohol, Smoking, and Marijuana Use Within a Canadian University Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to study actual and perceived substance use in Canadian university students and to compare these rates with US peers. PARTICIPANTS: students (N = 1,203) from a large Canadian university. METHODS: participants were surveyed using items from the National College Health (NCHA) Assessment of the American College Health Association questionnaire. RESULTS: alcohol was the most common substance used (65.8%), followed by marijuana (13.5%) and cigarettes (13.5%). Substance use and norms were significantly less than the NCHA US data. Overall, respondents generally perceived the typical Canadian student to have used all 3 substances. Perceived norms significantly predicted use, with students more likely to use alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana if they perceived the typical student to use these substances. CONCLUSIONS: similar to their US peers, Canadian university students have inaccurate perceptions of peer substance use. These misperceptions may have potentially negative influences on actual substance use and could be a target for intervention. Further research examining the cross-cultural differences for substance abuse is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".