MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150984223 · doi:10.1177/002204260803800209

Dual Substance Abusers Seeking Treatment: Demographic, Substance-Related, and Treatment Utilization Characteristics

2008· article· en· W2150984223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathy Colpaert, Wouter Vanderplasschen, Guido Van Hal, Eric Broekaert, Gilberte Schuyten

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Drug Issues · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDual diagnosisSubstance abusePsychiatrySubstance useIntervention (counseling)DrugMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Drug abuserAlcoholSubstance abuse treatmentComorbidityClinical psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High comorbidity exists between alcohol and drug-related disorders. However, little information is available on characteristics of clients abusing both alcohol and illicit drugs (so-called dual substance abusers). The proportion of dual substance abusers and their characteristics are examined in a sample of 1,626 clients seeking treatment in one of the 16 participating centers in the province of Antwerp (Belgium). More than a quarter of all clients were identified as dual substance abusers. Their characteristics correspond better to those of drug abusers than to those of alcohol abusers, but compared to the former, they are younger, more often male, use more types of illicit substances and more often use stimulating substances. Alcohol is often underestimated in substance use patterns. Thorough alcohol assessment, early intervention, and preventive actions are needed within the drug treatment system, and closer collaboration with the alcohol treatment system is absolutely essential.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Drug IssuesSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207