Knowledge of the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act and possession of a naloxone kit among people recently released from prison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to describe knowledge of Canada's Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act (GSDOA) and take home naloxone (THN) training and kit possession among people being released from provincial correctional facilities in British Columbia. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors conducted surveys with clients of the Unlocking the Gates Peer Health Mentoring program on their release. The authors compared the characteristics of people who had and had not heard of the GSDOA and who were in possession of a THN kit. FINDINGS: In this study, 71% people had heard of the GSDOA, and 55.6% were in possession of a THN kit. This study found that 99% of people who had heard of the GSDOA indicated that they would call 911 if they saw an overdose. Among people who perceived themselves to be at risk of overdose, 28.3% did not have a THN kit. Only half (52%) of participants had a mobile phone, but 100% of those with a phone said they would call 911 if they witnessed an overdose. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The authors found that people with knowledge of the GSDOA were likely to report that they would call 911 for help with an overdose. Education about the GSDOA should be a standard component of naloxone training in correctional facilities. More than one in four people at risk of overdose were released without a naloxone kit, highlighting opportunities for training and distribution. Access to a cellphone is important in enabling calls to 911 and should be included in discharge planning.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".