Substance Abuse and Aggressive Behavior among Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social workers, psychologists and psychopharmacologists have devoted little attention to study the direct relationship between drugs and adolescents’ aggression. The main objective of this study was therefore to determine the extent of the level of aggressive behavior among adolescents who underwent rehabilitation of drug abuse. This study also sought to find out the relationship between type of drugs used with aggressive behavior among adolescents. Respondents were 200 adolescents from three juvenile Henry Gurney schools in Malaysia who took part in this exploratory cross-sectional survey research design. A set of questionnaire was constructed by the researcher based on the Aggression Questionnaires (AQ) scale. Results showed that the majority of adolescents (95 percent) indicated an aggressive behavior of moderate to high level. The result of the study also found that adolescents who have been using heroin (r = 0.016, p <0.05) and morphine drugs (r = 0.181, p <0.05) showed significant correlation with aggressive behavior. The findings provided evidence for the significant role of the goverment to enhance rehabilitation modules for adolescents involved in drug abuse. Education on how to effectively deal with aggressive behavior among adolescents at risk should be emphasized for building positive behavior among adolescents in order to produce potential young generation in the future.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".