MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W278049155 · doi:10.1177/070674371105600408

Trends in Alcohol and Drug Use among Canadian Adolescents, 1990–2006

2011· article· en· W278049155 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Frank J. Elgar, Natalie Phillips, Nicole G. Hammond

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute of Child HealthCarleton University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCannabisInjury preventionSuicide preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthMedicineDrugHuman factors and ergonomicsMonitoring the FutureEnvironmental healthAlcoholDemographyPsychiatryPsychologySubstance abuse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report trends in rates of drunkenness, alcohol use, and drug use among Canadian adolescents. METHOD: Five national school-based surveys were carried out between 1990 and 2006 as part of the Canadian Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study (n = 4504 to 7010). Students in Grades 6, 8, and 10 were surveyed about the frequency of their drunken episodes and consumption of beer, liquor, and wine. Grade 10 students were also surveyed about their use of drugs. RESULTS: Rates of drunkenness and alcohol use declined slightly from 1990 to 2006, but about one-half of Grade 10 students in 2006 had used cannabis at least once in their lifetime (up from one-third in 1990). Lifetime prevalence rates of using other drug substances were below 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Timely information on alcohol and drug use among adolescents is important to health policy. Declining trends in alcohol misuse is encouraging; however, the proliferation of cannabis use indicates a need for continued surveillance and education about the risks associated with frequent cannabis use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→