Controlled, Encouraged or Adrift? Sources of Variation in Adolescent Substance Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frequent consumption of alcohol and cannabis by youth poses both concern and ambivalence to society about the nature of the problem and how to respond. In the last few decades, social science research has devoted considerable attention to substance use among youth, making it an important issue to consider; however, controversy abounds when considering where consumption patterns of youth fall on a continuum from normal to deviant. Central to these debates is the social acceptability of the substances being used, their legal status, the frequency with which they are consumed, and the particular groups most often engaged in their use. Youth who consume alcohol are viewed with less trepidation than those who consume cannabis. Moreover, those who use either substance recreationally or experimentally are deemed to be more typical than those who have escalated their use to more regular or frequent episodes. Finally, drug-using youth who are embedded in conventional society are viewed more positively than those who occupy the margins of society, such as those who are delinquent or homeless. To fully understand the debate about the deviancy versus the normalcy of adolescent substance use, more inclusive approaches that take into account structural, individual and situational explanations are needed; however, existing studies fail to consider all of these influences. Instead, there is debate about the dominance of each of these explanations. This dissertation examines and tests these competing representations and explanations of adolescent substance use by drawing on multiple sociological theories of deviance including control theories, differential association theory, routine activity approaches, and drift theory. Using a combined sample of high school students and street youth, the findings suggest that adolescent substance use is far too complex to be explained by only one theory. Instead, explanations for the variations in substance use must take into account both individual backgrounds and more immediate situational influences. Most importantly, individual beliefs about substances are an important and often ignored aspect of individual substance use patterns.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".