Substance Use and Mental Health among Canadian Social Workers
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
This article reports the findings of an online survey designed to collect information about substance use (licit, illicit, or pharmaceutical) and mental health (depression or anxiety) among social workers. Among the 489 participants, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) screenings indicated symptoms of depression and anxiety at a higher prevalence than those of the general Canadian population. There were relatively few correlations between mental health scores and substance use. PHQ-9 total score significantly predicted past-year antidepressant use and past-year sleeping medication use. GAD-7 total score significantly predicted past-year benzodiazepine use and past-year melatonin use. Effects of substances (e.g., cannabis, alcohol, benzodiazepines, cocaine, ecstasy) were predominantly beneficial or nonproblematic (e.g., enjoyment/pleasure; socializing enhanced; concentration/focus improved). Subjective experiences of social workers should be sought to understand potential relationships between mental health scores and enhancement effects of substance use. Substances are being used, at least in part, for their performance-enhancing effects to meet the expectations of day-to-day life. Interventions can shift toward root causes, with institutions held more accountable for supporting social workers and promoting "workplace care."
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.001 | 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