MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117669110 · doi:10.1080/09687630701228947

Risk factors for initiation into drug injection among adolescent street youth

2007· article· en· W2117669110 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Élise Roy, Nancy Haley, Pascale Leclerc, Jean-François Boudreau, Jean‐François Boivin

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs Education Prevention and Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersMedical Research CouncilMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociaux
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineInjection drug useSubstance abuseIncidence (geometry)DemographyCohortDrugDrug injectionPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young injectors are a group with high-risk behaviours, particularly with respect to HIV infection and hepatitis C. A leading strategy to prevent these infections could be the prevention of injection, especially among the youngest individuals. We report analyses on initiation into drug injection from a prospective cohort study of street youth conducted in Montreal, Canada. Among 118 non-injector participants under 18 years of age followed for an average of 1.31 years, we estimated an incidence rate of injection of 22.7 per 100 person-years. Independent predictors of initiation were: a lifetime history of use of ≥4 types of drugs, recent daily alcohol drinking, a recent episode of homelessness, a lifetime history of rape, and recent involvement in survival sex. The observed high rate of initiation into injection clearly indicates that interventions to prevent injection should target especially adolescent street youth. These interventions should address simultaneously individual and structural factors, such as substance abuse and living conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs Education Prevention and PolicySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207