MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031563692 · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzaa064_012

Gender Influences Self-Reported Use Patterns and Demographics in Canadian Cannabis Users

2020· article· en· W3031563692 on OpenAlex
Alison C. McDonald, Erin D. Lewis, Abdul Malik Sulley, Najla Guthrie, Malkanthi Evans

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisDemographicsDemographyLegalizationMedicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With federal legalization of cannabis in Canada and hemp in the USA, there is much interest in consumer demographics and use patterns. The objective of this study was to examine gender differences in cannabis use patterns and demographics in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. A 31 question, online market research survey was conducted on past and present cannabis use from March 2018 to October 2019, including Canadian respondents before and after federal cannabis legalization. The associations between gender and self-reported use reason and frequency, route of administration, cannabinoid, and life stage when starting were assessed. Possible differences were assessed by the Chi Square test and two sample t-test (age only). There were 2264 male and 1830 female respondents to the survey, with an average age of 34 ± 13 years. Across genders, the majority of users first started in high school (59.5%). Gender was associated with frequency of use (P < 0.001), higher proportions of males (73.9%) than females (61.1%) were daily users. Males more often reported using inhalation routes of administration, both vapour (43.6% M vs. 30.7% F) and smoking (85.3% M vs. 77.9% F) (P < 0.001). Interestingly, there were no significant differences in the use of sublingual (13.5% total), oral (47.0%) or suppository (0.6%) products between the groups. A greater proportion of males reported recreational cannabis use (79.6% M vs. 72.7% F) (P < 0.001). This agrees with an association between gender and reason for use for which a greater proportion of males reported using cannabis to socialize/relax (68.5% M vs. 54.8% F) and to receive a high (33.0% M vs. 22.6% F) (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the psychoactive component of cannabis, THC, was the most frequently consumed cannabinoid among a greater proportion of males (38.3%) than females (25.7%). Interestingly, there were equal proportions of males and females using cannabis for digestion, controlling pain, and reducing seizures. There are significant associations between gender and cannabis use in central Canada. Males and females report using cannabis for different reasons and in different ways and frequencies. With further research there is great potential for cannabis in health and wellness and these data are essential components to inform study design and progress this research area forward. KGK Science Inc.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.261 · 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