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
Despite the growing literature on nonmedical prescription drug use among students in North America, existing research does not investigate the potential convergences of nonusing student attitudes on drug acceptability with those of their stimulant-using peers. Analysis of 36 interviews with nonmedical stimulant prescription drug-using and nonusing undergraduate students in Canada provides insight into evaluations of drug acceptability within a competitive, top-tier research university context. Interviews are analyzed thematically with attention to practices students engage in to assess nonmedical stimulant use, and discourses students use to position the acceptability of such use. Interview results illustrate commonalities in how using and non-using students weigh the risks and advantages of nonmedical prescription stimulant use in relation to the pursuit of scholastic success. These findings are used to critically engage with the construct of drug acceptability, as conceptualized in the drug normalization framework of Howard Parker and colleagues. To conclude, recommendations are made for future research, and implications for university policies are considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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