Inconsistent reports of risk behavior among Brazilian middle school students: National School Based Survey of Adolescent Health (PeNSE 2009/2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the consistency of self-reports of risk behavior (overall and within four specific domains: alcohol use, tobacco use, drug use, and sexual activity) in two editions of the Brazilian National School Based Survey of Adolescent Health (PeNSE): 2009 and 2012. The overall proportion of cases with at least one inconsistent response in the two editions was 11.7% (2.7% on the alcohol items, 2.1% for drug use, 4.3% for cigarette use, 3% for sexual activity) and 22.7% (12.8% on alcohol items, 2.5% for drug use, 4.3% for cigarette use, 4.1% for sexual activity), respectively. Such inconsistency was more prevalent among males, delayed students, those who reported having experimented with drugs, and those who did not have a cellphone. Because inconsistent responses were more prevalent among the students who claimed to have engaged in risky activities, removing inconsistent responders affected the estimated prevalence of all risk behaviors in both editions of the survey. This study supports the importance of performing consistency checks of self-report surveys, following the growing body of literature on this topic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".