MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388524283 · doi:10.1080/07448481.2023.2277201

Patterns of anxiety, depression, and substance use risk behaviors among university students in Canada

2023· article· en· W4388524283 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Richard J. Munthali, Chris G. Richardson, Julia Pei, Jean N. Westenberg, Lonna Munro, Randy P. Auerbach, Ana Paula Prescivalli, Melissa Vereschagin, Quinten K Clarke, Angel Y Wang, Daniel Vigo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American College Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsLatent class modelDemographicsEthnic groupDepression (economics)AnxietyMental healthPsychological interventionDemographyClinical psychologyMultinomial logistic regressionPsychologySubstance useMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To identify subgroups of students with distinct profiles of mental health symptoms (MH) and substance use risk (SU) and the extent to which MH history and socio-demographics predict subgroup membership. Participants: University students (N = 10,935: 63% female). Methods: Repeated cross-sectional survey administered weekly to stratified random samples. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify subgroups and multinomial regression was used to examine associations with variables of interest. Results: LCA identified an optimal 4-latent class solution: High MH–Low SU (47%), Low MH–Low SU (22%), High MH–High SU (19%), and Low MH–High SU (12%). MH history, gender, and ethnicity were associated with membership in the classes with high risk of MH, SU, or both. Conclusion: A substantial proportion of students presented with MH, SU, or both. Gender, ethnicity and MH history is associated with specific patterns of MH and SU, offering potentially useful information to tailor early interventions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American College HealthSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207