MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4224306519 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1564275/v1

A Quality Assessment of Information Provided on Websites Selling Cannabis to Consumers in Canada

2022· preprint· en· W4224306519 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jeremy Y. Ng, Umair Tahir, Nicholas Lum

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsCannabisPopularityAdvertisingQuality (philosophy)Medical cannabisPurchasingBusinessRecreationMedicineInternet privacyPsychologyMarketingPsychiatryPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Cannabis is used by millions of people for both medical and recreational purposes, and this use is even greater in jurisdictions where it is legalized, such as Canada. Online cannabis vendors have gained popularity for purchasing cannabis due to the easy access and convenience to consumers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of health information provided by websites of cannabis vendors selling products to Canadian consumers, and to further identify trends in the information provided. Methods: Six different searches were conducted on Google.ca, and the first 40 webpages of each search were screened for eligibility. A total of 33 unique websites of cannabis vendors selling products to Canadian consumers were identified and included. The DISCERN instrument, which consists of 16 questions divided into three sections, was used to evaluate the quality of cannabis-related health information on these websites. Results: Across the 33 websites, the average of the summed DISCERN scores was 36.83 (SD = 9.73) out of 75, and the mean score for overall quality of the publication (DISCERN question 16) was 2.41 (SD=0.71) out of 5. Many of these websites failed to discuss uncertainties in research evidence on cannabis, the impact of cannabis use on quality of life, alternatives to cannabis use, risks associated with cannabis use, and lacked references to support claims on effects and benefits of use.Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the quality of cannabis-related health information provided by online vendors is poor. HCPs should be aware that patients may use these websites as primary sources of information, and appropriately caution patients while directing them to high-quality sources. Future research should serve to replicate this study in other jurisdictions and assess the accuracy of information provided by online cannabis vendors, as this was outside the scope of the DISCERN instrument.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0210.029
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→