MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068435624 · doi:10.1177/009145091203900104

Brief Intervention Experiences of Young High-Frequency Cannabis Users in a Canadian Setting

2012· article· en· W2068435624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katherine Rudzinski, Fraser McGuire, Meghan Dawe, Paul A. Shuper, Dan Bilsker, Rielle Capler, Jürgen Rehm, Benedikt Fischer

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Drug Problems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Qualitative researchMedicinePsychologyPopulationPsychiatryClinical psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-frequency cannabis use is prevalent among young adults and has been linked to negative health consequences, yet effective therapeutic interventions are currently limited. Brief Interventions (BIs) for problematic substance use have shown promise, but are typically limited to quantitative outcome measures. This study aims to document the qualitative experiences of young, high-frequency cannabis users with BIs. Sixty-two high-frequency cannabis users, recruited from university student populations, participated in one of two newly developed cannabis BIs and were surveyed qualitatively at the 3-month post-intervention follow-up. Results show that 69.4% of the respondents believed they had undergone changes in actions/thinking/attitudes regarding their cannabis use, with diversion to potentially less harmful cannabis use patterns—including reductions in the frequency/quantity of use and declines in deep-inhalation/breath-holding techniques—being reported. Findings suggest that a personalized, interactive, culturally appropriate format may be a promising BI template for this population. Future qualitative research on BI experiences is urgently needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Drug ProblemsSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207