L’influence du groupe de pairs sur la consommation de substances psychoactives licites et illicites à l’adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’adolescence est une periode de construction d’identite en interaction avec les pairs, mais qui peut etre aussi un moment d’initiation a la consommation de substances psychoactives licites et illicites. L’objectif de cet article est d’identifier l’influence des pairs et du groupe de pairs dans les consommations d’alcool, de tabac et de cannabis chez des adolescents. Les donnees sont issues d’un questionnaire en ligne auto-administre diffuse sur les reseaux sociaux par la procedure d’echantillonnage « boule de neige ». L’echantillon se compose de 518 adolescents francais âges de 14 a 17 ans. Les resultats revelent la forte influence du nombre de pairs percus comme des consommateurs de substances psychoactives sur l’experimentation et la frequence de consommation d’alcool, de tabac et de cannabis. A l’inverse, une taille elevee du groupe de pairs ou un desir, pour un adolescent, d’acquerir un statut social superieur dans le groupe de pairs exerce des effets protecteurs sur la consommation occasionnelle ou reguliere de tabac. Enfin, plus un adolescent entretient de bonnes relations avec ses pairs, moins il sera sujet a une consommation occasionnelle ou reguliere de tabac ou de cannabis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".