Routes of cannabis administration among adolescents during criminal prohibition of cannabis in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report assesses sociodemographic correlates of cannabis routes of administration (ROAs) among adolescents in 2017, one year prior to legalization of cannabis in Canada. We analyze a subsample of 809 students (Grades 9–12) from the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey (OSDUHS) who used cannabis in the previous year. Pipes/bongs/waterpipes (81.8%) are the most prevalent ROA, followed by joints (73.8%) and edibles (42%). Approximately 70% of students report 2+ ROAs. Alcohol use in the previous year is associated with 2.28 (1.3–5.58 OR; 95% CI) times the odds of food/drink ROA and 2.91 (1.10–3.89; 95% CI) times the odds of joint ROA. Tobacco use is associated with 1.60 (1.07–2.41 OR; 95% CI) times the odds of blunt ROA, 2.07 (1.10–3.89; 95% CI) times the odds of pipe/bong/waterpipe ROA, and 1.75 (1.03–2.95 OR; 95% CI) times the odds of e-cigarette/vape pen/vaporizer ROA. Students who used alcohol have a rate 1.59 (1.08–2.36 IRR; 95% CI) times greater for total ROA count, and students who used tobacco have a rate 1.24 (1.09–1.40 IRR; 95% CI) times greater. Given young people’s vulnerability to adverse outcomes associated with cannabis use, it is important to track ROA trends to inform harm reduction and educational programing and to evaluate impacts of policy changes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".