A Social Network–Informed Latent Class Analysis of Patterns of Substance Use, Sexual Behavior, and Mental Health: Social Network Study III, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We assessed whether a meaningful set of latent risk profiles could be identified in an inner-city population through individual and network characteristics of substance use, sexual behaviors, and mental health status. METHODS: Data came from 600 participants in Social Network Study III, conducted in 2009 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. We used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify risk profiles and, with covariates, to identify predictors of class. RESULTS: A 4-class model of risk profiles fit the data best: (1) solitary users reported polydrug use at the individual level, but low probabilities of substance use or concurrent sexual partners with network members; (2) social-all-substance users reported polydrug use at the individual and network levels; (3) social-noninjection drug users reported less likelihood of injection drug and solvent use; (4) low-risk users reported low probabilities across substances. Unstable housing, preadolescent substance use, age, and hepatitis C status predicted risk profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of social network variables into LCA can distinguish important subgroups with varying patterns of risk behaviors that can lead to sexually transmitted and bloodborne infections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".