Quantitative electroencephalographic amplitude, memory, and cognitive ability in Canadian First Nation adult offenders with and without solvent abuse histories / Michael R. Moland. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most electroencephalographic (EEG) studies of solvent exposure have involved factory workers chronically exposed to industrial chemicals. Few studies have examined the neurological effects of recreationally abused solvents, and none have explored EEG and solvent abuse in Canadian First Nations people. Measures of EEG amplitude, working memory, cognitive ability, depression, and anxiety were used to compare adult First \nNations male offenders (n = 28) with First Nations male university students (n=14). Offenders showed lower absolute theta and alpha amplitudes bilaterally. Compared to university students, they also showed significantly reduced scores on digit-span backward, letter-number sequencing, and a measure of nonverbal cognitive ability. No group differences were found for depression and anxiety. Offenders reporting a history of solvent abuse (n = 10) were also compared to those with no history of solvent abuse (n = 18) and controls (n = 14). Solvent-abusing offenders scored significantly lower than controls on digits forward, digits backward, letter number sequencing, and cognitive ability, while offenders without solvent abuse histories scored lower than controls on \nletter-number sequencing and cognitive ability. Only digits-forward scores significantly differentiated solving-abusing from non-solving-abusing offenders. On EEG measures, significant group differences were found on absolute alpha amplitudes in eyes-open and letter-number sequencing tasks, with solvent abuse history offenders showing decreased alpha EEG amplitudes compared to non-solvent abusing offenders and controls. The \nfindings suggest that First Nations offenders reporting a history of solvent abuse show evidence of reduced memory performance and reduced cortical EEG functioning compared to non-solvent abusing First Nations offenders and First Nations controls. \nParticipants : 28 First Nations offenders from the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre (in Northwestern Ontario), 14 First Nations controls (Lakehead University Students) and 2 community participants. Correctional inmates as a group reported a wide variety of past drug use involving (mainly) marijuana but also : gasoline, paint, glue, hairspray, barbiturates, opiates, and phencyclidine.
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 | 0.001 | 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".