MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963926087 · doi:10.1037/adb0000488

Understanding pathways between PTSD, homelessness, and substance use among adolescents.

2019· article· en· W2963926087 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan P. Davis, Graham DiGuiseppi, Jessenia De Leon, John Prindle, Angeles Sedano, Dean Rivera, Benjamin F. Henwood, Eric Rice

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Addictive Behaviors · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychological interventionSubstance usePsychiatrySubstance abusePosttraumatic stressMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 15.6; 74% male) completed baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessments. Autoregressive latent trajectory with structured residual (ALT-SR) models were used to examine within- and between-person relationships. We found continued support for prior work at the between-person level of analysis. At the within-person level, during the treatment phase, PTSD emerged as a key mechanism predicting both return to use and increased days of homelessness posttreatment. Further, greater substance use at treatment completion was associated with greater PTSD symptoms and homelessness, prospectively. The current study extends the previous work to consider individual level processes in conjunction with overarching event level predictors of homelessness. We found that PTSD symptomology is a driving factor that influences, both directly and indirectly, experiences of homelessness posttreatment. Interventions may wish to incorporate trauma informed approaches for youth entering treatment as this may mitigate long-term experiences of homelessness and return to substance use. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Addictive BehaviorsSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207