Determining community attitudes and concerns with respect to the establishment of safer injection facilities in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safer injection facilities (SIFs) provide a clean and supervised environment, thereby reducing health risks to drug users. Potential benefits include fewer overdoses, decreased rates of HIV, Hepatitis, and other blood-borne viruses, a reduction in open drug use, increased opportunities for health services and treatments, and cost savings to society. A pilot safer injection site is expected to open in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside in September 2003. This study assesses community attitudes and concerns with respect to SIFs. Focus groups with police officers, street nurses, and injection drug users in February and March 2003 revealed that they are supportive of the sites. Concerns related to the community impacts, external supports, administration, process, safety, and special populations (e.g. women, youth) were indicated. Special attention should be paid to the involvement of injection drug users in planning and programming, the inclusion of peer workers, the relationships between injection drug users, the wider population, and the police, and safety for marginalized populations. Recommendations to address concerns and ensure inclusive processes are provided.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".