Turning Points in the Lives of Youth of With/Without ADHD: Are They Linked to Changes in Substance Use?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the behavior beliefs, social supports, and turning points in individuals with/without ADHD related to their substance use/abuse (SU/A) decisions. METHOD: The coded interviews from 60 participants with/without ADHD were compared for their SU/A decisions and precipitants with these decisions among abstainers, persisters, and desisters. RESULTS: ADHD participants reported fewer social advantages to avoid SU/A than non-ADHD participants. Desisters and persisters reported more social advantages of using drugs than abstainers. Persisters reported both more negative and positive psychological/physiological effects of SU/A. ADHD participants reported fewer positive role models in their lives. Non-ADHD patients reported more positive turning points than ADHD participants, regardless of SU/A status. CONCLUSION: ADHD individuals face challenges in making healthy decisions about SU/A due to lack of positive role models. Reinforcing accurate behavioral beliefs may be important to change behaviors in individuals with SU/A or to prevent SU/A initiation in ADHD individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".