MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of social factors in the use of licit drugs among university students from one university in Kingston, Jamaica

2015· article· en· W2257603503 on OpenAlexafffund
Rashalee Mitchell, Samuel Noh, Hayley A. Hamilton, Bruna Brands, Maria da Glória Miotto Wright, Francisco Cumsille, Akwatu Khenti

Bibliographic record

VenueTexto & Contexto - Enfermagem · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersGovernment of CanadaCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
KeywordsSpiritualityExploratory factor analysisEnvironmental healthAlcohol consumptionPsychologyProtective factorMedicineGerontologyClinical psychologyAlcoholAlternative medicinePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quantitative, descriptive and exploratory study, with a cross-sectional design aimed at examining whether social factors are related to licit drug use among university students in one university in Kingston, Jamaica. The non-probabilistic sample was composed of 335 students from a specific university in Kingston, Jamaica. A questionnaire was developed with five validated scales that interrogated about the influence of the peer group, the family relationships, the entertainment, the spirituality, and drug consumption. The data indicated that respondents with one or more friend who engaged in drug use were 9.5 times more likely to smoke tobacco and twice as likely to consume alcohol. Notably, respondents who had low spirituality were twice as likely to smoke tobacco and 1.3 times more likely to consume alcohol. These results suggest that having friends who use drugs may be a risk factor for alcohol and tobacco use, whereas greater spirituality may serve as a protective factor.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.088 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTexto & Contexto - EnfermagemSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207