How to Screen for Problematic Cannabis Use in Population Surveys
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
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Cannabis use is a growing challenge for public health, calling for adequate instruments to identify problematic consumption patterns. The Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT) is a 10-item questionnaire used for screening cannabis abuse and dependency. The present study evaluated that screening instrument. METHODS: In a representative population sample of 5,025 Swiss adolescents and young adults, 593 current cannabis users replied to the CUDIT. Internal consistency was examined by means of Cronbach's alpha and confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, the CUDIT was compared to accepted concepts of problematic cannabis use (e.g. using cannabis and driving). ROC analyses were used to test the CUDIT's discriminative ability and to determine an appropriate cut-off. RESULTS: Two items ('injuries' and 'hours being stoned') had loadings below 0.5 on the unidimensional construct and correlated lower than 0.4 with the total CUDIT score. All concepts of problematic cannabis use were related to CUDIT scores. An ideal cut-off between six and eight points was found. CONCLUSIONS: Although the CUDIT seems to be a promising instrument to identify problematic cannabis use, there is a need to revise some of its items.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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