Moral foundations underpinning attitudes toward supervised consumption services across Canada’s prairie provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is indisputable evidence that supervised consumption services (SCS) help to keep people safe and decrease significant harms associated with substance use, the Canadian public often holds divergent and polarized views towards SCS. Polarized perspectives can be resistant to evidence and can prevent productive discourse that might otherwise lead to better public health services and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of the study was to determine the degree to which individuals' moral foundations predict attitudes toward SCS and whether attitudes are impacted by stigmatizing views of, and proximity to, people who use drugs. METHODS: The study was based upon conceptual frameworks related to moral foundations theory (MFT), stigma, and personal experience with people who use drugs (PWUD), using associated instruments to determine alignment with public attitudes towards SCS. A series of hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were employed to identify variables that significantly predict support for SCS. RESULTS: The panel sample comprised 2116 participants from the three prairie provinces in Canada (Manitoba, n = 716; Saskatchewan, n = 700; and Alberta, n = 700). Higher scores on the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity subscales were associated with higher levels of support for SCS. Conversely, higher scores on the Authority/Respect and Purity/Sanctity subscales predicted lower levels of support for SCS. Greater support for SCS was found to be predicted by lower levels of stigma towards people who use drugs. Overall, participants from Alberta and Saskatchewan were less supportive of SCS than those from Manitoba, although Manitoba lacked an SCS at the time of the study. CONCLUSION: The results enhance our understanding of factors that predict support levels for SCS among the public in Canada's Prairie Provinces. These findings can inform researchers, policy and decision-makers in developing strategies for bringing the public on board to increase the acceptance of SCS in their communities by specifically addressing underlying concerns that may not be overtly articulated by those with opposing views.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".