Drawing the line on risky use of cannabis: Assessing problematic use with the ASSIST
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
Health and social harms from cannabis use typically are assessed by comparing those who use to those who do not use. Recognizing that not all use of cannabis is necessarily problematic, we examine rates of self-reported harms as a function of frequency of use. Second, we assess the effectiveness of the cannabis portion of the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) as a screening tool for identifying problematic cannabis users. Data come from the Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS; N = 13,909) and the 2006 NWT Addictions Survey (2006 NWTAS; N = 1235). Results from both surveys indicate that harms are most likely among weekly and daily users. Although frequent users are at increased risk of harms, greater balance of sensitivity with specificity is obtained with the ASSIST screening tool using a somewhat higher threshold than what is suggested in clinical applications of the instrument. Implications for this higher threshold for public policy 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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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