Natural course of co-use of alcohol and cannabis in adolescents and young adults in Montréal, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about changes in alcohol and cannabis co-use over time in adolescents and young adults. We sought to describe the natural course of alcohol and cannabis co-use from age 12 to 17 and 20 to 31 and to describe frequent (i.e., ≥ once/month) binge drinking (i.e., ≥ 5 drinks/occasion) and cannabis use from age 20 to 31. METHOD: = 1,293). Complete data on alcohol and cannabis were available for 620 12-17-year-olds (58% female) followed from 2005 to 2011 in AdoQuest, and 673 20-31-year-olds (56% female) followed from 2007 to 2020 in NDIT. We reported proportions of co-use, exclusive drinking ("drinking"), exclusive cannabis use ("cannabis use"), frequent co-use, frequent binge drinking, and frequent cannabis use by age and sex. RESULTS: Co-use rose from 2% at age 12-13 to 23% at age 17, was stable at 44% at age 20 and 24, and then decreased to 37% at age 31. Drinking rose from 20% to 51%, and cannabis use was consistently rare (< 2%). During young adulthood, frequent co-use declined from 21% at age 20 to 12% at age 31, and frequent binge drinking declined from 29% at age 20 to 22% at age 31. Frequent cannabis use increased from 6% at age 20 to 11% at age 31. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol and cannabis use should be studied as time-varying behaviors. Co-use patterns should be monitored over time in this population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".