Intervención de la familia al inicio del tratamiento, según la experiencia de jóvenes usuarios de drogas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: drug abuse has a wide impact in family, affecting the health of its members, the quality of their relations, and economic situation and social integration of the family as a whole. Several ways of coping have been identified, depending on the style of parenting and on the incidence of a dominant discourse that permeates family practices and stories with a narrative of stigma and exclusion. Objective: to analyze the content of the experience reported by young drug users about the intervention of their families at the begging of treatment. Method: qualitative study based on a casuistic and thematic analysis of narrative-biographical interviews conducted with a sample of 11 young drug users in treatment. Results: two narratives of family intervention were identified: stories relating to disciplinary and repressive actions that can reach high levels of violence, and, less frequently, stories of family support grouped into two categories, emotional and practical-informative support. Discussion and conclusions: family intervention related with drug use and treatment may be interpreted in terms of the exercise of a “positional” control in the family and of a collectivist culture, dominated by parental authoritarism and a lack of emotional support.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".