Context matters: Characteristics of solitary versus social cannabis use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Given the increase in cannabis availability and use in North America, identification of risk factors for cannabis use and dependence is paramount. One factor that may be associated with various cannabis-related adverse outcomes is the context in which it is used. This secondary analysis study sought to examine the extent to which the social context of cannabis use is related to patterns of use and associated harms. DESIGN AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty-eight adult cannabis users were community-recruited in Halifax, Canada. Participants took part in a face-to-face structured interview where they provided information about the social context of their most recent cannabis-using occasion and about their patterns of, and motives for, cannabis use. RESULTS: Compared to individuals reporting their most recent cannabis-using occasion as social, solitary users (n = 55) were significantly more likely to screen positive for psychosis, endorse more symptoms of cannabis abuse/dependence, report using cannabis to cope, and use cannabis on more days within the previous 30 days. On the other hand, social users were significantly more likely to report using alcohol in addition to cannabis during their most recent cannabis-using occasion (all P < 0.05). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that solitary cannabis use may be associated with specific motives for use and future adverse consequences. Findings from this study serve as a guide for future investigations which could ultimately inform public policy and the development of targeted harm-reduction strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".