Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs: Report on a Survey in Canada
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
A representative sample of the Canadian public was interviewed to determine their attitudes and perceptions of the risks and benefits from prescription drugs.In general, prescription drugs, with the exception of sleeping pills, antidepressants, and tranquilizers, were perceived to be high in benefit and low in risk.They appeared to be sharply differentiated from other chemicals and from illicit drugs.Perceptions varied somewhat according to geographic region, age, gender, education and tendency toward political activism on health issues.Despite the general acceptance of drug risks, respondents were very quick to call for withdrawal from the market of a drug suspected of causing fatal reactions in some patients.Evidence for safety and efficacy, in combination with warning information, appeared to make these concerned individuals much more tolerant of the risks from such a drug.Practical implications of these results and the need for further research on risk/benefit perception are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it