Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, adolescents and young adults consume more cannabis than any other age group. Despite adolescents and young adults being particularly vulnerable to cannabis use related harms, research suggests that this age group often holds misconceptions about possible harms associated with cannabis use. The primary purpose of this study was to examine young adults’ perceived dangerousness of regular cannabis use and the extent to which perceptions of dangerousness differs depending on the age (14, 21, or 28 years) and sex (male or female) of the cannabis user. Participants (N = 656) between the ages of 18 to 25 years completed an online survey that utilized an experimental vignette design whereby participants were randomly assigned one of six vignettes depicting a character who used cannabis regularly and based on their assigned vignette were asked to rate seven items of perceived dangerousness. A series of ANOVAs showed a significant main effect of age on six of seven items. Post hoc tests revealed that cannabis use by a 14-year-old was viewed as significantly more dangerous than cannabis use by a 21 and 28-year-old. However, cannabis use by a 21-year-old was not viewed as significantly more dangerous than cannabis use by a 28-year-old. Female cannabis use was perceived as more dangerous than male cannabis use in respect to social well-being. An inverse relationship between Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test (CUDIT) score and perceived dangerousness was also found. Overall, these findings suggest that young adults may not fully appreciate the potential harms associated with regular cannabis use in their age cohort and that this may be particularly true of those having experienced adverse consequences associated with their own cannabis use.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".