Learners' general attitudes and views on experimenting with drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the this research to provide relevant stakeholders with the information they need to plan effective problem-solving strategies, to compile policies and programmes that will address the problem of drug abuse in South African schools. By doing so, they researchers hope to help create a safe and conducive learning environment. The aim of the survey to determine the perceptions, the extent to which learners experiment with and the learners' general attitude towards drug usage. The project comprised a sample of 1980 selected learners from 35 primary and secondary schools from District 4 in Pretoria. These learners were asked to complete the structured questionnaires. The findings of this study indicated that there are significant percentages of learners who are involved in illegal substance abuse. One quarter (24,6%) of the sample had already experimented with inhalants, nearly 22% (21,9) had already smoked cocaine or mandrax, one quarter (27,3%) had previously used other hard drugs such as mandrax, ecstasy and LSD, 7,7% had previously injected themselves with illegal substances such as heroin, cocaine and a cocktail of while 16,7% had sniffed cocaine. Close to one quarter of the respondents believed that taking an illegal drug once would not do them any harm, while almost the same number of respondents believed that it was fun to experiment with because of its illegal status. Almost two thirds of the participants stated that people start to take illegal as a result of peer group pressure. An overwhelming majority of the respondents agreed that people who have drug problems should be rehabilitated (helped) rather than punished. The majority of the respondents confirmed the generality and social acceptability of taking as the reason for changed social norms pertaining to drug use as well as to the increased participation in such activities. The majority of the learners also agreed, however, that using a variety of illegal is relatively dangerous; three in ten respondents believed that a person must be under the influence of (on a high) to enjoy a rave party. One in six of the respondents maintained that learners should take steroids to improve their sport performance at school level - a view that strongly rejected by the greater majority of their counterparts.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".