MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136100341 · doi:10.1111/add.15494

Attributable fractions for substance use in relation to crime

2021· article· en· W3136100341 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew M. Young, Chealsea De Moor, Pam Kent, Tim Stockwell, Adam Sherk, Jinhui Zhao, Justin Sorge, Shanna Farrell MacDonald, John R. Weekes, Emily Biggar, Bridget Maloney‐Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaCarleton UniversityCanadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisPsychiatryPsychologyInjury preventionPoison controlSubstance abuseSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsCriminologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Building upon an existing methodology and conceptual framework for estimating the association between the use of substances and crime, we calculated attributable fractions that estimate the proportion of crimes explained by alcohol and six other categories of psychoactive substances. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: Canadian federal correctional institutions. PARTICIPANTS: Canadian men (n = 27 803) and women (n = 1335) offenders who began serving a custodial sentence in a Canadian federal correctional institution between 2006 and 2016. MEASUREMENTS: Offenders completed the computerized assessment of substance abuse, a self-report tool designed to assess (1) whether the offence for which they were convicted would have occurred had they not been intoxicated from alcohol or another substance, (2) whether they committed the offence to support their alcohol or other substance use and (3) whether they were dependent on alcohol (alcohol dependence scale) or another substance (drug abuse screening test). Offences were grouped into four mutually exclusive categories: violent crimes, non-violent crimes, impaired driving and substance-defined crimes. This study focused on violent and non-violent crime categories. Substances assessed were: alcohol, cannabis, opioids, other central nervous system (CNS) depressants, cocaine, other CNS stimulants and other substances. FINDINGS: According to offender self-report, 42% of all violent and non-violent crime would probably not have occurred if the perpetrator had not been under the influence of, or seeking, alcohol or other substances. Between 2006 and 2016, 20% of violent crimes and 7% of non-violent crimes in Canada were considered attributable to alcohol. In contrast, all other psychoactive substance categories combined were associated with 26% of all violent crime and 25% of non-violent crime during the same time-frame. CONCLUSIONS: Attributable fraction analyses show that more than 42% of Canadian crime resulting in a custodial sentence between 2006 and 2016 would probably not have occurred if the perpetrator had not been under the influence of or seeking alcohol or other drugs. Attributable fractions for alcohol and substance-related crime are a potentially useful resource for estimating the impact of alcohol and other substances on crime.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207