Cannabis education resources for parents: an environmental scan and critical content analysis in the context of legalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis was recently legalized for adult use in Canada and many American states. In this context, there is a pressing need for educational resources – aimed at youth and their parents/caregivers – to reduce potential harm. However, little is known about the current state of such resources. This paper presents findings of an environmental scan, mapping and critically analyzing the present landscape of cannabis resources for parents/caregivers. We systematically searched the grey literature identifying English-language resources. Search terms included: youth, young people, child, adolescen*, teen*, train*, tool*, talk, engage*, educat*, involve*, family, parent, adult, caregiver, cannabis, marijuana, pot, weed, prevent*, and harm. Overall, 60 resources met the inclusion criteria. Most were developed in the United States (n = 37) and Canada (n = 19), with three from Australia and one from the United Kingdom. Of these, 42 (70%) were categorized as abstinence-based, 14 (23%) harm-reduction oriented, and 4 (7%) had an unclear approach. Few (10/59) consulted youth in their development and none explicitly included parent/caregiver input. Results can inform the development of new, more appropriate and accessible family-oriented resources – priority in a legalized context where cannabis conversations are shifting away from stigma and abstinence, towards pragmatic approaches with harm reduction goals.
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) | 0.000 | 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".