Counselling adolescents and parents about cannabis: A primer for health professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While cannabis use among adolescents is frequent in Canada, youth do recognize the potential harms, and increasingly expect knowledgeable health care providers to discuss substance use in everyday practice. This practice point provides sound, evidence-based tools to help health professionals address nonmedical (recreational) cannabis use and its related risks. After highlighting how to make the clinical setting a safe space for youth to talk about psychoactive substances, specific strategies for approaching cannabis use in effective, developmentally appropriate ways are described. Consistent with current literature, screening questionnaires to help structure discussion and identify adolescents who may benefit from more specialized interventions are recommended. Because one in six adolescents who experiments with cannabis goes on to misuse it, appraising their willingness to change risky behaviours is a key aspect of care, along with supportive goal-setting and helping families. Recommended resources for practitioners and parents are included.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".