Spiking Versus Speculation? Perceived Prevalence, Probability, and Fear of Drink and Needle Spiking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrasting widespread speculation in the media and public debate about spiking (administration of a substance to a person without their knowledge/consent), empirical evidence on the subject is lacking. This study aimed to investigate the assumed prevalence, perceived likelihood, and fear of drink-versus needle-spiking, and associated mental strain. Data from a cross-sectional online-survey (November 2022 – January 2023) of 1916 adults connected to Berlin’s nightlife-scene were analyzed. Almost a quarter reported having experienced drink-spiking, but only a small fraction sought medical or police attention; about 1% suspected needle-spiking. Presumptive victims of drink-spiking rated the likelihood and fear of spiking significantly higher and exhibited more symptoms of depression and anxiety. Considering toxicological and police findings, the reported prevalence and perceived likelihood of spiking seem to be highly overestimated. This, in conjunction with associated mental strain, highlights the importance of adequately addressing the issue of spiking through psychoeducation, prevention, and interprofessional investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".