MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322491204 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282340

Sociometric network analysis in illicit drugs research: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4322491204 on OpenAlexafffund
Naomi Zakimi, Alissa Greer, Martin Bouchard, Arshpreet Dhillon, Alison Ritter

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSocial network analysisCentralityPsycINFOPopularitySocial network (sociolinguistics)PsychologySociologyMEDLINEPolitical scienceSocial scienceComputer scienceSocial psychologySocial mediaWorld Wide WebSocial capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sociometric or whole network analysis, a method used to analyze relational patterns among social actors, emphasizes the role of social structure in shaping behaviour. Such method has been applied to many aspects of illicit drug research, including in the areas of public health, epidemiology, and criminology. Previous reviews about social networks and drugs have lacked a focus on the use of sociometric network analysis for illicit drugs research across disciplines. The current scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the sociometric network analysis methods used in illicit drugs research and to assess how such methods could be used for future research. METHODS: A systematic search of six databases (Web of Science, ProQuest Sociology Collection, Political Science Complete, PubMed, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and PsycINFO) returned 72 relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria. To be included, studies had to mention illicit drugs and use whole social network analysis as one of their methods. Studies were summarized quantitatively and qualitatively using a data-charting form and a description of the studies' main topics. RESULTS: Sociometric network analysis in illicit drugs research has grown in popularity in the last decade, using mostly descriptive network metrics, such as degree centrality (72.2%) and density (44.4%). Studies were found to belong to three study domains. The first, drug crimes investigated network resilience and collaboration patterns in drug trafficking networks. The second domain, public health, focused on the social networks and social support of people who use drugs. Finally, the third domain focused on the collaboration networks of policy, law enforcement, and service providers. CONCLUSION: Future illicit drugs research using whole network SNA should include more diverse data sources and samples, incorporate mixed and qualitative methods, and apply social network analysis to study drug policy.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0410.033
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.568
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.052 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207