The Relations between Youth Cannabis Use, School Cannabis Use-Related Disciplinary Approaches and Student Perceptions of School Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the school year immediately following cannabis legalization in Canada, this paper investigated youth perceptions of school support for the prevention and cessation of substance use. Scant research has examined student perceptions in relation to school disciplinary approaches. This study was the first to classify school discipline approach styles using school-level measures.Objective: The objective of this study was to examine whether different school cannabis use-related disciplinary approaches are associated with student cannabis use and perceptions of school supportiveness for the prevention and cessation of substance use.Results: School- and student-level survey data from Year 7 (the 2018/2019 school year) of the COMPASS study were used, including 68,037 grade 9–12 (Secondary I–V in Quebec) students attending 131 Canadian secondary schools. Schools were classified as using different cannabis use-related disciplinary styles based on school-administrator reported approaches to student first-offense violations of school cannabis policies. We identified that although none of the cannabis use-related disciplinary approach styles examined were associated with cannabis use, they were associated with student perceptions. Students attending schools classified as using a Permissive/Supportive approach had a higher likelihood of perceiving their school as supportive for substance use prevention/cessation than their peers at Authoritarian schools. Students who perceived their school as supportive for substance use prevention/cessation were less likely to report current cannabis use than their peers who perceived their school as unsupportive.Conclusions: Unlike previous studies using school classification styles that are based on student perceptions, results do not support direct associations between school cannabis use-related disciplinary styles and student cannabis use. Future prospective research should examine whether supportive disciplinary approaches (e.g., counseling referrals, educational programs) promote student perceptions of school supportiveness, and in turn, deter student substance 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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".