Substance use disorders among African, Caribbean and Black (ACB) people in Canada: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous research demonstrated that substance use continues to be one of the most complex and prevalent problems among African, Caribbean and Black (ACB) people. A number of studies were conducted to characterise substance use patterns in this population. To our knowledge, this is the first known review in Canada characterising substance use disorders on ACB people.This scoping review seeks to answer the following research questions: What characterises substance use disorders among ACB people in Canada? What are the different types and prevalence of substance use among ACB people in Canada? Do ACB people in Canada use more than one substance? What factors are associated with substance use among ACB people in Canada? What are the health and social impacts of substance use in ACB people in Canada? METHODS AND ANALYSES: This study will use the methodological framework for scoping reviews developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will search electronic bibliographic databases including Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We will limit our search to English articles published between 2000and2019. In addition, we will conduct a grey literature search. Two investigators will independently screen citations and full-text articles. Our findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for scoping reviews guidelines. We will provide a descriptive summary of the studies and summarise the findings with respect to the outcomes and report any gaps that might require further investigation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our proposed study does not involve human participants; therefore, research ethics approval is not required. This study will provide evidence that will inform the development of strategies for appropriate interventions, as well as policy and further research. The results will be disseminated through publications in open access peer-reviewed journals, presentations at scientific meetings and to the lay public.
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 | 0.101 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.012 |
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".