“Just a Habit”: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis as Ordinary, Convenient, and Controllable Experiences According to Drivers in a Remedial Program
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
As numerous jurisdictions worldwide are liberalizing cannabis laws, there is increasing need to understand the social contexts and individual perceptions involved in driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC). We conducted 20 one-to-one interviews with adult participants recruited from a remedial program for drivers convicted of or suspended for impaired driving. Study eligibility included having driven a motor vehicle within an hour of using cannabis in the last year. Many participants described DUIC as part of ordinary or routine experiences. Despite availability of other transportation options, DUIC was often preferred due to convenience and cost-effectiveness. While most recalled feeling some effects of cannabis use or high while driving, many reported that they did not feel a need to compensate for impairment. Our findings—particularly that of DUIC as a regularly occurring behavior—highlight important challenges for designing effective education and prevention initiatives.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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