Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since there appears to be a connection between substance use (and abuse) and loneliness it is of theoretical and clinical interest to explore the differences of coping with loneliness which drug users employ. The present study examined the manner in which MDMA (Ecstasy) users in comparison with non-MDMA (Non-Ecstasy) users and the general population cope with loneliness. Results reveal that drug users, in particular those who consume Ecstasy, so indeed cope with the distressing effects of loneliness differently. Both the effects of MDMA and the atmosphere in consuming this drug seem to help in endorsing most of the coping strategies of loneliness in this study. Since research indicated that users do not choose their drug of choice randomly but are exposed to the appropriate drug, the one which fulfills their particular needs, it appears that Ecstasy fulfills the needs and mediates the negative effect which loneliness causes and in turn, how one copes. The present study may indicate a need to address loneliness and strategies of coping with it, especially when counseling Ecstasy abusers in their teens or early adulthood years. (GCP)
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".