Promoting Healthy Choices: The Importance of Differentiating Between Ordinary and High Risk Cannabis Use Among High-School Students
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
Education can affect the lives of adolescents by reinforcing healthy choices and promoting a healthy lifestyle. However, difficulties experienced in the school and family environments may interfere with these goals. This may be particularly true for those youth already participating in health-compromising behaviors such as drug use. Of course, patterns of drug use take many forms, and some are more serious than others. Youth using cannabis at more intensive levels have often been overlooked in the literature. This paper, based on 1997 data, addressed this gap by examining the effects of individual and cumulative school and family factors on not only the probability of any cannabis use but also the progression to problem use among 1980 Ontario students. The results suggested that disrupted family structure increased the likelihood of cannabis use in general. However, patterns of problem use were displayed among youth experiencing problems in school and poor family relationships. As anticipated, adolescents experiencing multiple school and family factors were also significantly more likely to engage in cannabis use, and in its more serious form, when controlling for other demographic predictors. The implications for health promotion initiatives in the school are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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