Sociocultural determinants of alcohol and cannabis use and misuse among Nunavimmiut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Stemming from historical traumas and changes in the Inuit way of life, substance use and its intertwined problems are a major cause of concern for Nunavimmiut. This study's objective is to investigate sociocultural determinants of substance use and misuse to inform culturally appropriate public health programs. METHODS: The 2017 Qanuilirpitaa? survey was conducted among a sample intended to be representative of Nunavimmiut aged 16 and over (total n = 1326). Sociocultural factors included cultural identity, land-based activities, involvement in community activities, social support, and family and community cohesion. The frequency of binge drinking (5 or more drinks on one occasion), cannabis use, and problematic substance use (CAGE and DAST-10) were documented. Data were analyzed using weighted multivariate logistic regressions. Inuit partners were involved from the planning of analyses to the co-interpretation of results. RESULTS: Nearly a third of Nunavimmiut aged 16 and over reported binge drinking at least once a week (29.3%), and 68.6% of drinkers were at risk of potential drinking problems. Forty-five percent (45%) reported using cannabis at least once a week, and 30% of drug users were at risk of potential drug abuse problems. Volunteering and participation in community activities were associated with lower odds of cannabis use, as was frequently going on the land with weekly binge drinking, potential drinking problems, and weekly cannabis use. Social support and community cohesion were associated with higher odds of weekly binge drinking, as was cultural identity (centrality scale) with potential drinking problems. CONCLUSION: Key determinants of substance use relevant to Inuit culture were identified. Results are in line with our Inuit partners' experience in their communities and are coherent with current land-based interventions implemented in Nunavik. A thorough understanding of substance use contexts and related stressors should guide the content and implementation of substance use programs in Nunavik.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".