MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144250249 · doi:10.1108/dat-09-2013-0040

How should substance use problems be handled? Popular views in Sweden, Finland, and Canada

2014· article· en· W2144250249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Blomqvist, Anja Koski‐Jännes, John Cunningham

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs and Alcohol Today · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationAddictionCannabisRespondentPsychologyPopulationSocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatryEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – Although the way in which, for example, substance use problems are conceived and reacted to (by experts and treatment professionals but also by the environment), can have vast consequences for those directly or indirectly concerned, there is little systematic knowledge about how various preferred approaches differ between types of problems and sociocultural settings. In an ambition to at least partly mend this gap, this paper aims to compare how the general public in Sweden, Finland, and Canada appraise four generically different approaches to dealing with substance use problems, as these are applied to problem use of alcohol, cannabis, heroin, and cigarettes. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses data from three national surveys, aimed at uncovering how representative population samples from Sweden, Finland, and Canada perceive and understand the character of, and the proper way of handling, various addictive problems. Data from these surveys have been used to discern and operationalize four basic “models of helping and coping” as these have been outlined by Brickman et al. (1982). The analysis has aimed at investigating how the popular preferences for either of these models vary with type of addiction (to cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, and other (“hard”) drugs, national setting, and potentially important respondent characteristics. Findings – The results point to large differences between the ways in which the general public understands the proper way of handling the four types of addiction, and shows, for example, that addiction to “hard” drugs is predominantly perceived as a matter for expert treatment, whereas smoking, or addiction to cigarettes, is more often perceived as a bad habit which the user is able to break on her/his own. In addition, the popularity of different handling models is found to vary between countries, and with personal characteristics such as gender, age, and substance use experiences. Originality/value – The study is one of few that have systematically tried to find out how various forms of substance use problems, or addiction, are conceived and reacted to in various national and social settings.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs and Alcohol TodaySame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207