MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036102526 · doi:10.7895/ijadr.v3i4.171

Alcohol and drug use and other high-risk behaviors among youth in the slums of Kampala, Uganda: Perceptions and contexts obtained through focus groups

2014· article· en· W2036102526 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Monica H. Swahn, Melissa Haberlen, Jane Palmier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeorgia State University
KeywordsFocus groupSlumPopulationPsychologyContext (archaeology)Reproductive healthPositive Youth DevelopmentEnvironmental healthMedicineDevelopmental psychologyGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Swahn, M., Haberlen, M., & Palmier, J. (2014). Alcohol and drug use and other high-risk behaviors among youth in the slums of Kampala, Uganda: Perceptions and contexts obtained through focus groups. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 3(4), 289-295. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v3i4.171Aims: The study seeks to determine perceptions of and contexts for risky behaviors among street and slum youth in Kampala, through focus groups.Design: Three 90-minute focus groups were conducted in Luganda (local language) to ask specific questions on alcohol and drug-related behaviors among youth in the slums.Setting: Uganda Youth Development Link drop-in centers for disadvantaged youth in Kampala.Participants: 31 participants, aged 14 to 24 years.Measures: The focus group probes were based on the World Health Organization report “Working With Street Children: Module 5: Determining the Needs and Problems of Street Children—A Training Package on Substance Use, Sexual and Reproductive Health Including HIV/AIDS and STDs.”Findings: Results show that these youth engage in a number of risky behaviors, including alcohol and drug abuse, fighting and weapon carrying, delinquency, prostitution and unsafe sexual behaviors.Conclusions: The study provides context for risky behaviors in this population, which can provide useful insights and help to guide resource allocation and intervention planning for services that seek to reduce adverse health outcomes in this vulnerable population, particularly those related to alcohol and drug use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Alcohol and Drug ResearchSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207