A comparative study of the influence of collective efficacy on substance use among adolescent students in Philadelphia, Toronto, and Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe the differences in illegal adolescent substance use among representative samples of secondary school students in Philadelphia (N = 712), Toronto (N = 983), and Montreal (N = 824) and apply a novel theoretical perspective. Collective efficacy is a widely cited criminological theory that has not been applied to minor forms of delinquency such as underage alcohol use and cannabis use. We examined the influence of four measures of collective efficacy on substance use among students aged 14–17 years in these three cities. We found that adolescents in Montreal consistently reported higher prevalence of alcohol and cannabis use than those in either Toronto or Philadelphia, and these differences remained significant after controlling for compositional differences. We also found that collective efficacy has some theoretical and empirical merit in all three cities surveyed, as the component of neighborhood closure was associated consistently with adolescent substance use involving alcohol and cannabis. However, the other collective efficacy measures of social cohesion, parental closure, and child control were not significantly related to these forms of adolescent substance use and showed some interaction effects by site. Future research is needed to better understand the value of collective efficacy in explaining adolescent substance use, and should be applied to more serious forms of drug use and drug selling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".