Best friends' interactions and substance use: The role of friend pressure and unsupervised co‐deviancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Best friends exert a substantial influence on rising alcohol and marijuana use during adolescence. Two mechanisms occurring within friendship - friend pressure and unsupervised co-deviancy - may partially capture the way friends influence one another. The current study aims to: (1) examine the psychometric properties of a new instrument designed to assess pressure from a youth's best friend and unsupervised co-deviancy; (2) investigate the relative contribution of these processes to alcohol and marijuana use; and (3) determine whether gender moderates these associations. Data were collected through self-report questionnaires completed by 294 Canadian youths (62% female) across two time points (ages 15-16). Principal component analysis yielded a two-factor solution corresponding to friend pressure and unsupervised co-deviancy. Logistic regressions subsequently showed that unsupervised co-deviancy was predictive of an increase in marijuana use one year later. Neither process predicted an increase in alcohol use. Results did not differ as a function of gender.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".