Co-morbid substance use behaviors among youth: any impact of school environment?
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
BACKGROUND: Substance use is common among youth; however, our understanding of co-morbid tobacco, alcohol and marijuana use remains limited. The school-environment may play an important role in the likelihood a student engages in high risk substance use behaviors, including co-morbid use. PURPOSE: This study aims to: (i) describe the prevalence of co-morbid substance use behaviors among youth; (ii) identify and compare the characteristics of youth who currently use a single substance, any two substances, and all three substances; (iii) examine if the likelihood of co-morbid use varies by school and; (iv) examine what factors are associated with co-morbid use. METHODS: This study used nationally representative data collected from students in grades 9 to 12 (n = 41,886) as part of the 2006-2007 Canadian Youth Smoking Survey (YSS). Demographic and behavioral data were collected including, current cigarette, alcohol and marijuana use. Results. 6.5% (n = 107,000) reported current use of all three substances and 20.3% (n = 333,000) of any two substances. Multi-level analysis revealed significant between school variability in the odds a student used all three substances and any two substances; accounting for 16.9% and 13.5% of the variability, respectively. Co-morbid use was associated with sex, grade, amount of available spending money and perceived academic performance. CONCLUSIONS: Co-morbid substance use is high among youth; however, not all schools share the same prevalence. Knowing the school characteristics that place particular schools at risk for student substance use is important for tailoring drug and alcohol education programs. Interventions that target the prevention of co-morbid substance use are required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it