Bereaved mothers’ media coverage and public support for harm reduction in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mothers whose child’s death is related to substance use have emerged as prominent and outspoken critics of Canadian drug policy in the news media. We examined the extent to which, and who among, the general public has seen or heard mothers bereaved by substance use in the media; predicted factors associated with exposure to such media; and explored associations with public acceptance of harm reduction.Methods We analyzed data from a 2018 online panel survey assessing Canadian views on harm reduction, using randomly-drawn provincially representative (N = 4645) and nationally representative (n = 2002) samples of adults.Results A majority (58.3%) of Canadians had seen or heard media featuring a mother whose child had died from an overdose. Respondents who had an increased level of familiarity with people who use drugs as well as older respondents were significantly more likely to have reported exposure to bereaved mothers’ media. Respondents who had been exposed to bereaved mothers’ media coverage were less likely to respond ‘don’t know/no opinion’ of harm reduction vs. opposing harm reduction.Conclusion Additional studies using a variety of methods are required to further evaluate the advocacy work being undertaken by mothers bereaved by substance use.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".