Exploring Experiences of Drink and Needle Spiking Incidents Among Global Drug Survey Respondents from 22 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored experiences of spiking following the re-opening of nightlife settings post COVID-19 lockdown. Global Drug Survey 2022, respondents were asked about experience, context, and consequences of drink/needle spiking. In a sample of 7697 respondents 2% reported experiencing spiking the last 12 months, and 20% over a year ago. Most occurred in clubs/bars (54.8%), but a quarter occurred in a private home. 84.9% of respondents suspected a drug was added to their drink; 4.2% thought they had been injected with a drug. Almost a fifth experienced sexual assault during the incident. Only 7.2% who experienced drink spiking reported it to police. Higher AUDIT scores, being a woman, recent illicit substance use and recent clubbing experience were also associated with recent spiking. Low rates of reporting means it is difficult to understand prevalence and causes. However, media reports of an epidemic of spiking appear to have been disproportionately emphasised.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".