MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034225071 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaa016

Cannabis vaping: Understanding the health risks of a rapidly emerging trend

2020· review· en· W3034225071 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

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaIsland HealthUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisPublic healthEnvironmental healthMedicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid emergence of youth vaping has completely changed the landscape of adolescent substance use in Canada and has become a pressing public health issue of our time. While nicotine remains the most common substance encountered in vaping devices, cannabis vaping is now reported by one-third of youth who vape. Though cannabis vaping is thought to generate fewer toxic emissions than cannabis smoking, it has been associated with several cases of acute lung injury and often involves high-potency forms of cannabis, exposing youth to several acute and long-term health risks. The low perceived riskiness of cannabis as a substance and of vaping as a mode of consumption may bring a false sense of security and be particularly appealing for youth who may be looking for a 'healthier way' to use substances. While research is still lacking on how best to support youth who may have already initiated cannabis vaping, concerted efforts among paediatric providers, public health experts, schools, communities, and families are urgently needed to limit the spread of cannabis vaping among Canadian youth.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.278 · 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