KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND PRACTICE TOWARDS DISCARDING UNWANTED HOUSEHOLD MEDICINES AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN WESTERN REGION, KSA
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impropriate disposal of medicines can lead to increase security, health and environmental risks. In this study, we evaluated the awareness and pattern of practice regarding drug disposal among university students in the Western Region of Saudi Arabia. A Cross-sectional research design using convenience sampling technique was used in this study. 1446 respondents successfully responded to this study.More than Three quarter (76.9%) of which have had the experience of discarding drugs. Discarding unwanted medicines via household waste baskets was the most popular method followed by disposing drugs via drainage. Only a quarter of respondents have previously received information about how to dispose medicines. Drug dosage form and amount of drug were important factors.Low awareness level of respondents and the lack of systems instructing the re-collection of unwanted household medicines may be the main reasons linked to theirrational method of drug disposal. Not failing the importance of awareness programs, introducing such drug-disposal systems would improve the outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it