MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918740686 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024497

Cannabis use among a nationally representative cross-sectional sample of smokers and non-smokers in the Netherlands: results from the 2015 ITC Netherlands Gold Magic Survey

2019· article· en· W2918740686 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian V. Fix, Danielle M. Smith, Richard J. O’Connor, Bryan W. Heckman, Marc C. Willemsen, K. Michael Cummings, Geoffrey T. Fong

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPfizer
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studyEnvironmental healthCannabisBiostatisticsEpidemiologyPublic healthSample (material)PsychiatryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Existing evidence shows that co-occurring use of tobacco and cannabis is widespread. Patterns of co-use of tobacco and cannabis may change as more jurisdictions legalise medicinal and/or recreational cannabis sales. This analysis examined predictors of current cannabis use and characterised methods of consumption among smokers and non-smokers in a context where cannabis use is legal. Setting The 2015 International Tobacco Control Netherlands—Gold Magic Survey conducted between July and August 2015. Participants Participants (n=1599; 1003 current smokers, 283 former smokers and 390 non-smokers) were asked to report their current (past 30-day) use of cigarettes and cannabis. Cigarette smokers reported whether they primarily used factory made of roll-your-own cigarettes. Those who reported any cannabis use in the last 30 days were asked about forms of cannabis used. X 2 and logistic regression analyses were used to assess relationships among combustible tobacco and cannabis use. Results Past 30-day cannabis use was somewhat higher among current tobacco (or cigarette) smokers (n=57/987=5.8%) than among former or never smokers (n=10/288=3.5% and n=6/316=1.9%, respectively). Joints were the most commonly used form of cannabis use for both current cigarette smokers (96.9%) and non-smokers (76.5%). Among those who smoked cannabis joints, 95% current smokers and 67% of non-smokers reported that they ‘always’ roll cannabis with tobacco. Conclusions In this Netherlands-based sample, most cannabis was reported to be consumed via smoking joints, most often mixed with tobacco. This behaviour may present unique health concerns for non-cigarette smoking cannabis users, since tobacco use could lead to nicotine dependence. Moreover, many non-cigarette smoking cannabis users appear to be misclassified as to their actual tobacco/nicotine exposure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207