Analysis of trends in the prevalence of cannabis use in Canada, 1985 to 2015.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian federal government has committed to legalize, regulate, and restrict non-medical cannabis use by adults in 2018. To prepare for monitoring the health, social and economic impacts of this policy change, a greater understanding of the long-term trends in the prevalence of cannabis use in Canada is needed. DATA AND METHODS: Nine national surveys of the household population collected information about cannabis use during the period from 1985 through 2015. These surveys are examined for comparability. The data are used to estimate past-year (current) cannabis use (total, and by sex and age). Based on the most comparable data, trends in use from 2004 through 2015 are estimated. RESULTS: From 1985 through 2015, past-year cannabis use increased overall. Analysis of comparable data from the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey and the Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey for the 2004-to-2015 period suggests that use was stable among 15- to 17-year-old males, decreased among 15- to 17-year-old females and among 18- to 24-year-olds (both sexes), and increased among people aged 25 or older. DISCUSSION: According to data from national population surveys, since 2004, cannabis use was stable or decreased among youth, and rose among adults. Results highlight the importance of consistent monitoring of use in the pre-and post-legalization periods.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".