A Coordinated Approach to Student Drug Use Surveys in Canada
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
Student surveys of substance use provide an essential source of information regarding substance use trends, associated risks, sociodemographic correlates, and identification of high risk groups in a youth population. In Canada, these surveys are conducted intermittently in eight of ten provinces. Large methodological variability across jurisdictions limits opportunities for interregional comparisons and benchmarking. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, in partnership with national and provincial organizations, is working toward the development of a set of core indicators and a standard methodology for student surveys. Three working groups were formed to facilitate this work: development of indicators, development of guidelines for design and analysis, and identification of provincial/territorial school system characteristics. The first task was to develop and gain consensus on core indicators and was recently completed. This paper focuses on the process used to develop and select the indicators, including consideration of national and international surveys along with developing drug trends.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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