Cannabis Careers Reconsidered: Transitions and Trajectories of Committed Long-Term Users
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
Despite the cross-culturally persistent high prevalence of cannabis use in general adult populations, in-depth analyses of extended use careers are uncommon in the scientific literature. This paper reports on in-depth interviews conducted with 104 users living in Toronto, Canada. A pretested questionnaire developed for use in a larger, cross-national study guided data collection on use levels and frequency from the first year to most recent month of use. The data support a controlled drug use model, with aggregate intake eventually decreasing and becoming stable or more moderate over time. Four main career patterns are identified and compared on measures of dependence and levels of consumption in the year prior to the study. In comparison with those whose long-term use has varied, stable users report fewer cannabis-related problems, despite using more heavily and frequently. While dependency problems are highly subjective, transitions in use patterns more generally reflect personal contingencies of lifestyle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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