MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factores de riesgo relacionados al uso de drogas ilegales: perspectiva crítica de familiares y personas cercanas en un centro de salud público en San Pedro Sula, Honduras

2009· article· es· W2042205997 on OpenAlexaff
Gladys Magdalena Rodríguez Funes, Bruna Brands, Edward M. Adlaf, Norman Giesbrecht, Laura Simich, Maria da Glória Miotto Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem · 2009
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPersonaSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents quantitative data from a multicenter, cross-sectional study, which was performed at a public health center in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, using multiple methods. The objective of the study was to describe the critical perspective of people who reported being affected by their relationship with an illicit drug user (relative or acquaintance) in terms of risk factors. Data collection was performed using 100 questionnaires. Most participants were women with low education levels. Drug users were mostly men, with an average age of 23.3 years. The most consumed drug was marijuana (78%), followed by crack/cocaine (72%), glue/inhalants (27%), hallucinogens (ecstasy/LSD) (3%), amphetamines/stimulants (1%), and heroin (1%). The identified risk factors include: previous experience with alcohol/tobacco, having friends who use drugs, lack of information, low self-esteem, age, and other personal, family and social factors. In conclusion, prevention and protection should be reinforced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Latino-Americana de EnfermagemSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207