MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008041162 · doi:10.1177/0022042620908200

The Impact of Cannabis Legalization in Canada on Adolescents’ Perceptions

2020· article· en· W3008041162 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Drug Issues · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegalizationCannabisRecreationEffects of cannabisPsychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the legalization of cannabis in Canada in October 2018, research has not reached a clear conclusion on how legalization impacts adolescents’ perceptions of the substance. This study sought to examine how the nationwide legalization of recreational cannabis in Canada impacted youth opinions of legalization. Surveys were administered to 398 Grade 8 students in May 2017 (pre-legalization) and 377 Grade 8 students in December 2018 (post-legalization). Participants completed an open-ended question regarding their opinion on cannabis legalization and a ranking of whether legalization of cannabis was very good (1), good (2), bad (3), or very bad (4). Analyses revealed that young adolescents primarily hold negative views toward cannabis legalization. No significant difference existed between theme frequencies or ratings when comparing responses prior to and following legalization. These results suggest that legalization of recreational cannabis use in Canada had little effect on youth perceptions of cannabis legalization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it