The prevalence of methamphetamine and amphetamine abuse in North America: a review of the indicators, 1992–2007
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
INTRODUCTION: This paper reviews epidemiological information about methamphetamine production and use in North America. METHODS: Information is drawn from a range of sources, including, but not limited to, historical accounts, peer-reviewed papers, population surveys and large national databases. RESULTS: Methamphetamine and amphetamine use in North America is characterised by geographic variations, with different types of the drug, different routes of administration and different types of users at various times. Unlike some other drug use patterns in North America, the nature of methamphetamine use in Canada, Mexico and the United States has been linked closely in terms of production and supply of the drug. According to their national household surveys, the annual prevalence for 'speed' use in Canada was 0.8% in 2004, 0.3% for 'anfetaminas' and 0.1% for 'metanfetaminas' in Mexico in 2002, and 1.4% for 'stimulants' in the United States in 2006. DISCUSSION: Although the data sources in the three North American countries are not consistent in methodology, terminology or frequency of reporting, all show similar trends. The type of stimulant most used has shifted from non-medical use of pharmaceutical amphetamine to use of powder methamphetamine and then to use of 'ice'. The indicators show the problem is greatest in the western parts of the countries and is moving eastward, but the decreased availability of pseudoephedrine may have a significant impact on the nature of the epidemic in the future. Nevertheless, use of methamphetamine poses a number of risks for users and specialised treatment resources for these various populations are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it