Protective behavioral strategies associated with psychoactive substance use in different contexts and populations. A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Protective behavioral strategies (PBS) are behaviours that can be applied before, during or after psychoactive substance use to reduce the likeli hood of associated negative consequences.Most of previous PBS research was limited to college students' drinking.However, this is not the only context in which research on PBS has been conducted.This article sought to identify and cha racterise the contexts in which PBS has been studied and/or applied in practice to date.This objective was carried out through a narrative literature review. StreszczenieWprowadzenie: Behawioralne strategie chroniące (PBS) to zachowania, które można zastosować przed, w trakcie lub po zażyciu substancji psychoaktywnych w celu ograniczenia prawdopodobieństwa wystąpienia związanych z tym negatywnych konsekwencji.Większość badań i analiz na temat PBS dotyczyło picia alkoholu przez studentów szkół wyższych.Nie jest to jednak jedyny kontekst, w jakim prowadzono badania nad PBS.Celem niniejszego artykułu było zidentyfikowanie i charakterystyka kontekstów, w których PBS były dotąd badane i/lub stosowane w praktyce.Cel ten został zrealizowany za pomocą narracyjnego przeglądu literatury.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".