MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W206424941

Application of the CART Model to Classify the Perception of Young Canadian Teenagers on the Effect of Marijuana on Health

2014· article· en· W206424941 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruben Thoplan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisHarmPerceptionCartPsychologySet (abstract data type)Decision treeRecallMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceEngineeringCognitive psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of the illicit drug, marijuana has increased over years among young teenagers in different parts of the world and its harm on the health is generally well-known. This paper attempts to study the perception of young adolescents of 13-15 years old residing in Canada towards the danger of marijuana on health. To do so, a classification and regression tree (CART) has been applied on the data from the 2012 National Anti-Drug Strategy (NADS) Youth Advertising Recall and Tracking Survey. The decision tree has been applied and pruned on a training data set (70%) and evaluated on the testing data set (30%). The results show that the main indicators which impact on the perception of a teenager towards the harm marijuana has on health are the perceptions towards psilocybin (another illicit drug), the province in which the teenager lives and whether he/she has been ever offered drugs. The overall error rate on the testing data set based on the confusion matrix is less than 20% and the area under the ROC curve is relatively high showing that the model is accurate in classifying the perception of young teenagers on the health marijuana has on health.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied ResearchSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207