Cannabis health knowledge and risk perceptions among Canadian youth and young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although recreational cannabis is now legal in Canada, little empirical evidence exists regarding young Canadians' cannabis literacy, cannabis-related risk perceptions, and risk of different forms of cannabis or the effect that public health education may have on these perceptions. The present study sought to address these knowledge gaps to examine health knowledge and risk perceptions associated with cannabis use. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with a national sample (N = 870) of Canadians aged 16 to 30 years in October 2017 using a commercial panel. The study examined young Canadians' awareness of negative health effects related to cannabis, evaluation of known risks, and risk perceptions of different forms of administration. RESULTS: Most respondents were aware of a cannabis-related physical health effect (78.0%). Approximately one-third reported having been exposed to public health messaging about cannabis; digital media was reported most frequently. Compared to never users, ever users were less likely to report general likelihood of addiction (p < 0.001) and harm to mental health (p < 0.001). Approximately one-quarter of past 3-month cannabis users reported they were at least "a little" addicted. Respondents who reported using a particular form of cannabis self-administration (e.g., edibles, smokables) were less likely to perceive harm than those who did not use each form (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current study is among the first to measure the knowledge and perceptions of risks of Canadian youth about cannabis. The study, conducted in the time immediately preceding legalization, may serve as a reference point for future studies examining changes in cannabis knowledge and risk perceptions. This will be important in addressing the need for monitoring and enhancing public awareness of the impact and potential harms of this newly legalized substance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".