Self-coded indirect memory associations in a brief school-based intervention for substance use suspensions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the concurrent validity of self-generated and self-coded substance use associations for marijuana and alcohol use. Grades seven to twelve students were assessed as part of a brief intervention program in lieu of suspension for substance use infractions in school. During the cognitive assessment, students generated memory associations to probes for high-risk situations and desirable outcomes. Later, the participant rated their responses according to categories including both non-risk and substance use. Three different coding methods were compared: (1) conservative codes using clearly unambiguous responses, (2) liberal scores adding ambiguous, but likely responses, and (3) self-coded. Self-coded scores were higher, had stronger correlations with substance use, and were better predictors of substance use and problems than either conservative or liberal coded scores. These findings suggest that self-coding may be used to improve concurrent validity, decrease ambiguities in coding, and reduce the cost of measuring memory associations. The present method promises a cost effective and valid measure of indirect substance use cognitions that can be readily adapted for interventions.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".