Sex‐Related Differences in Adolescent Cannabis Use: Influences of School Context and School Connectedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Boys use cannabis at a younger age and more frequently than girls. It has been suggested these sex differences might vary according to students' relationship to school. We explored whether the association between sex and adolescents' cannabis use varies among schools and according to students' school connectedness. METHODS: The study population consisted of all students from 11 secondary schools in the greater Québec City area. The sample included 6185 respondents in years 1 to 5 at the secondary level (equivalent to grades 7-11). Study outcomes were monthly cannabis use and early cannabis use. RESULTS: The association between sex and monthly cannabis use varied significantly among schools after controlling for students' main characteristics and school socioeconomic environment. We found a statistically significant modifying effect of school connectedness on the association between sex and monthly cannabis use. For early cannabis use, we found no modifying effect of school connectedness nor any association with sex. CONCLUSIONS: Measures to reduce adolescents' cannabis use could be better adapted to local context and more tailored to specific higher-risk groups. School connectedness is a protective factor for cannabis use, although this effect appears stronger for girls than boys.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".