How Cultural, Personality, and Gender Differences Affect Stigma Toward Use of Substances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While a large amount of research on drug stigma exists, that research focus primarily on people who have major problems with substance use. Little research exists on the stigma that is faced by individuals who use substances recreationally. We believe that this is a critically under-investigated area, as it can act as a middle ground before people potentially develop addictions or substance use problems. Our research investigates what stigma people may hold towards those who use substances recreationally. 129 participants from KPU answered questions pertaining to their cultural orientation personality and their views on people who use substances, with a total of seven different substances, both legal and illegal, being mentioned. A regression analysis was then conducted to see if certain cultural orientations, personality traits, or gender influenced their stigmatizing views towards those who use substances. Our results indicated that cultural orientation, personality, and gender had little to no affect on perceived stigma, however the legality or severity of the drug did affect peoples perceived stigma. Our findings contribute to the knowledge of how stigmatization towards those who use substances can be affected, where those who use harder substances are more highly stigmatized.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".