Legalization of cannabis in Canada—Local media analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Legalization of recreational cannabis is occurring across the United States, with some controversy. To understand the range of issues that can arise when such a policy change is enacted, we examined portrayal of legalization at the local level by studying newspaper articles in Calgary, Alberta, shortly before and after cannabis legalization in Canada. METHOD: We searched the largest-circulation newspaper for cannabis-related items and analyzed for content and slant toward cannabis legalization. RESULTS: Among 165 items, business/economics (70.9% of items) and legalization (69.7%) were most frequent, with health only 29.7%. Across all items, the slant was more approval (44.2%) than disapproval (23.0%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: When cannabis was legalized, the local newspaper focused more on economic aspects of legalization rather than about health issues. Further research can determine the generalizability of the findings to other locales and provide comparison as other similar policy changes roll out. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: The study provides new information on what happens when drug policies are enacted. Documenting the media portrayal of substance use policies is a promising tool.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it