School-based interventions for preventing substance use in indigenous children ages 7–13: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Throughout the world, indigenous peoples share traumatic colonial experiences that have caused gross inequalities for them and continue to impact every aspect of their lives. The effect of intergenerational trauma and other health disparities have been remarkable for Indigenous children and adolescents, who are at a greater risk of adverse mental health and addiction outcomes compared with non-indigenous people of the same age. Most indigenous children are exposed to addictive substances at an early age, which often leads to early initiation of substance use and is associated with subsequent physical and mental health issues, poor social and relational functioning, and occupational and legal problems. The aim of this paper is to report the protocol for the scoping review of school-based interventions for substance use prevention in Indigenous children ages 7-13 living in Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand. This scoping review seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What is known about indigenous school-based interventions for preventing substance use and (2) What are the characteristics and outcomes of school-based interventions for preventing substance use? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will use steps described by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac: (1) identifying the research question(s); (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting the studies; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results and (6) consulting with experts. Our findings will be reported according to the guidelines set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics review approval is not required for this project. Findings from this study will be presented to lay public, at scientific conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.
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 | 0.085 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.010 |
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".