D.A.R.E. (Drug abuse resistance education) : perceptions of teachers, principals, and school resource officers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study employs interviews to measure the perceptions of sixteen teachers, nine school principals, and seven School Resource Officers on the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program, offered to grade six students in one small (population approximately 70,000) city in western Canada. Perceptions in three areas are examined: curricular content, program delivery, and efficacy. Subjects overwhelming viewed the curricular content favourably. Similarly, there was strong agreement that the program was well delivered. The efficacy of the program was judged less positively; however, this did not mitigate the subjects' strong desire to continue implementation of the program. These results are consistent with the research literature on DARE which documents the popularity of the program, but acknowledges that it appears to have limited effects upon reducing student drug use. The results of this study are used to examine five options for delivering an in-school program for preventing or reducing drug abuse and violence among students. The options explored range from retaining the DARE program in its current form, to eliminating it, reforming it, implementing an alternative program, or designing an entirely new drug and violence prevention program. The conclusion drawn is that the DARE program should be withdrawn and replaced with an entirely new drug and violence prevention program and curriculum specific to community realities and needs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".