PERCEPTION OF RISKS AND BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF CANNABIS AMONG STUDENTS IN BRASILIA, BRAZIL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives: to analyze the perception of data on and benefits of cannabis, and its association with the use among Brazilian students in public high schools between the ages of 15 and 17, as well as to analyze the intention of these adolescents to use cannabis in the hypothetical context of regulatory changes in Brazil. Method: a quantitative cross-sectional study involving 268 students aged 15 to 17. The instruments of data collection were: Inter-American Drug Use Data System Secondary Students School Survey; Monitoring the Future; Benthin Risk Perception Measure; and an item on intent to use cannabis in the context of regulatory changes. Data were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: 23.5% of the students use cannabis. The average age they started using was 14 years old (SD=1.802); 56.3% perceive a high risk of using cannabis regularly, 58.6% consider the risk to be greater than the benefit; and most of them have no intention of using cannabis. Conclusion: Prevention strategies that focus exclusively on the harmful effects of drugs are not effective, and a more realistic approach focused on health promotion is more likely to show positive results. Conclusion: The intention to use cannabis in case of regulatory change showed that the scenario would not change significantly, since the proportion of those who would use it is very similar to the one that has already used the drug.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
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".