Assessment of local interest in trying edible cannabis products once legalized in Ontario, and awareness of their effects: a cross-sectional survey of youth and adults aged 16 years and older in Wellington–Dufferin–Guelph in 2018
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
Objectives To assess (i) local interest in trying cannabis edibles once legal, (ii) awareness of the delayed onset of effects of edibles, and (iii) to identify characteristics associated with interest in trying edibles. Method(s) An anonymous, online cross-sectional survey was conducted (2018) and included questions on recreational cannabis use, respondent demographics, and questions specific to edibles. Descriptive analyses and multinomial logistic regression modelling were conducted to identify characteristics associated with interest in trying edibles. Results There were 3013 eligible responses. Over half of respondents indicated interest in trying edibles, including many who never used cannabis previously. Many respondents intended to prepare edibles at home. Over a third of respondents underestimated the time to onset of effects of edibles. The following variables increased the odds of a respondent being interested in trying edibles: area of residence, cannabis usage status, sex, age group, employment status, education level and awareness of the Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines and of time to effect onset. Conclusion Educational messaging should target those most likely to use edibles and address potential knowledge gaps concerning time to onset of effects and safe preparation of edibles at home. Pre-prepared edibles labelling should include information on serving size and anticipated time to onset of effects.
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 | 0.002 | 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