A comparative analysis of learners' perceptions regarding substance abuse in two Tshwane public schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with the results of a survey undertaken during 2001 at two Tshwane schools in order to identify key concerns regarding illegal drugs and related matters, and to make information available to legitimate and interested stakeholders in order to establish partnerships for the development of problem-solving strategies. The central hypothesis addresses the learners' opinions on drug-free schools. In the case of both schools the null hypothesis was accepted at the expense of the alternative hypothesis. It was established that the overwhelming majority of learners who had no knowledge as to whether their school was drug-free or not, also expressed ignorance pertaining to the knowledge of drug selling in their school. This was also the case when learners were asked to express their view regarding the illegal drug problem in their respective schools. Additionally it was revealed that more learners had witnessed drugs being sold in their neighbourhood than drugs sold in their schools or on school grounds. It is noteworthy that almost one-third of learners in school A who perceived their school as being non-drug-free, also had knowledge of peers in their school who were selling illegal drugs, whereas among school B respondents only 11, 5 percent expressed similar views. Furthermore it was revealed that one-quarter of the learners who viewed school A as being drug-free, also knew of pupils who sold illegal drugs at their school, while almost 30 percent among learners of school B who perceived their school as being non-drug-free assumed likewise. Ten principles that foster the creation of a protective school and can be applied by educators, school administrators, policy makers, community leaders, and parents are also suggested. Ultimately logic should dictate that the appropriate information ought to be conveyed to the authorities in order to enable them to promote the quest for drug-free schools.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".