Crack Pipe Sharing in Context: How Sociostructural Factors Shape Risk Practices among Noninjection Drug Users
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
With the increasing prevalence of crack use in Canada in the previous decade, crack pipe sharing has emerged as a public health concern, implicated in the transmission of blood- and saliva-borne infections. Drawing on qualitative research with crack users in Victoria, Canada, participants' narratives of sharing pipes demonstrate how risk practices are shaped by social, structural, and environmental factors. Three main themes emerged: sharing pipes with friends and partners; economic motivations for sharing pipes; and the rules and etiquette of crack pipe sharing. Based on these themes we demonstrate that despite conventional views of drug equipment sharing as “bad behavior,” in the lived experience of our participants sharing pipes is a rational and functional activity. Ramifications of these findings are considered in light of future public health programs featuring the dissemination of health information and distribution of safer crack pipe kits.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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