A short‐term longitudinal analysis of friendship selection on early adolescent substance use
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
There is a strong empirical connection between individual and peer substance use during adolescence. The determination of whether this level of covariation reflects influence or selection is obscured by both the design and measurement strategies used. This present study utilizes a short-term longitudinal design with bi-monthly assessments to address the following two hypotheses: a) Adolescents select friends on the basis of their substance use, and b) New friend substance use predicts changes in future use. French Canadian adolescents (n = 143) were interviewed on their friendship networks and substance use behaviors (e.g., tobacco, alcohol and marijuana) four times during a school year. Cross-lag panel models revealed that adolescents who use substances tend to select new friends who use. Moreover, once in the network, these new friends also contribute to changes in the adolescents' substance use. These findings are relevant to understanding the multiple functions of adolescent substance 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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