MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Norma percibida de consumo de marihuana en los pares de estudiantes universitarios

2009· article· es· W2119749276 on OpenAlexaff
Angélica Cazenave, John Cunningham, Bruna Brands, Carol Strıke, Maria da Glória Miotto Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem · 2009
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En este estudio se describe la relación entre la norma percibida del consumo de marihuana en los pares y el consumo real informado por alumnos de una universidad chilena. Se trata de un estudio cuantitativo, multicéntrico y transversal. Participaron 449 estudiantes previa firma del consentimiento informado. La información se recolectó con un cuestionario autoaplicado y se analizó con el programa SPSS 15.0. Fue encontrado que la mayoría son mujeres solteras, entre 20 y 21 años de edad, estudiantes de enfermería y educación. La norma percibida fue mayor que la de estudios nacionales (32,1% versus 21%); también el consumo autoinformado fue mayor que el nacional (32,1% versus 5,6%). Se observa un mayor consumo entre las mujeres, en educación y enfermería. Se confirma la feminización del consumo; el inicio del consumo en la universidad, el uso recreativo y la mayor tolerancia al consumo en los pares. Existe una sobreestimación del consumo de marihuana, lo que de acuerdo a la Teoría de las Normas Sociales y de Normalización influye en el aumento del consumo. Esta investigación constituye un aporte a las políticas de la salud del país y de la universidad.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Latino-Americana de EnfermagemSame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207