A comparative study of the influence of collective efficacy on substance use among adolescent students in Philadelphia, Toronto, and Montreal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it