Daily cannabis use during the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Canada: a repeated cross-sectional study from May 2020 to December 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Daily cannabis use is most strongly implicated in the cannabis-attributable burden of disease. In the context of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Canada, we characterized trends in daily cannabis use in the overall sample and various population subgroups, and examined risk characteristics associated with daily cannabis use. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was operationalized using data from six waves of a national, online survey of adults residing in Canada who spoke English (N = 6,021; May-08 2020 to December-01 2020). Trends were characterized using the Cochran-Armitage test and risk characteristics were identified using chi-square test and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Daily cannabis use in the overall sample remained stable (5.34% - 6.10%; p = 0.30). This pattern of findings extended to various population subgroups as well. The odds of daily cannabis use were higher for those who: were males (Odds Ratio; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.46; 1.15 - 1.85), were between 18 - 29 years (2.36; 1.56 - 3.57), 30 - 39 years (2.65; 1.93 - 3.64) or 40-49 years (1.74; 1.19 - 2.54), self-identified as white (1.97; 1.47 - 2.64), had less than college or university completion (1.78; 1.39 - 2.28), engaged in heavy episodic drinking (2.05; 1.62 - 2.61), had a job that increased the risk of contracting COVID-19 (1.38; 1.01 - 1.88), experienced loneliness 5-7 days in the past week (1.86; 1.26 - 2.73) and felt very worried (2.08; 1.21 - 3.58) or somewhat worried (1.83; 1.11 - 3.01) about the pandemic's impact on their financial situation. CONCLUSIONS: Daily cannabis use did not change in the overall sample or various population subgroups during the pandemic. Pandemic-related risks and impacts were associated with daily cannabis use.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".