Sex and Gender Interactions on the Use and Impact of Recreational Cannabis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis is the second most frequently used substance in the world and regulated or legalized for recreational use in Canada and fourteen US states and territories. As with all substances, a wide range of sex and gender related factors have an influence on how substances are consumed, their physical, mental and social impacts, and how men and women respond to treatment, health promotion, and policies. Given the widespread use of cannabis, and in the context of its increasing regulation, it is important to better understand the sex and gender related factors associated with recreational cannabis use in order to make more precise clinical, programming, and policy decisions. However, sex and gender related factors include a wide variety of processes, features and influences that are rarely fully considered in research. This article explores myriad features of both sex and gender as concepts, illustrates their impact on cannabis use, and focuses on the interactions of sex and gender that affect three main areas of public interest: the development of cannabis use dependence, the impact on various routes of administration (ROA), and the impact on impaired driving. We draw on two separate scoping reviews to examine available evidence in regard to these issues. These three examples are described and illustrate the need for more comprehensive and precise integration of sex and gender in substance use research, as well as serious consideration of the results of doing so, when addressing a major public health issue such as recreational 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".