Spiking Versus Speculation? Perceived Prevalence, Probability, and Fear of Drink and Needle Spiking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it