Study Protocol: Cannabis in the Closet? Older Persons' Perceptions of Stigma and their Influence on Use and Access to Medicinal Cannabis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for millennia. Stigma associated with cannabis use may influence older persons access to cannabis, information seeking about cannabis, and/or use of cannabis. Scant research has sought to examine the impact of older persons’ perceptions of stigma on the ways they learn about and use medicinal cannabis, with important implications for their health. Methods/Design: In this qualitative descriptive study, we will seek older persons’ information needs and challenges accessing cannabis from older persons and professionals who work in the cannabis industry. Using open ended questions, we will survey and interview older persons who use cannabis or are considering using it about their perceptions of stigma, information seeking, choice of cannabis product, and preferred vendor. Professionals who work with cannabis will be interviewed for their experiences with older persons seeking information about and access to cannabis. Discussion: Findings will identify what information related to medicinal cannabis use older Canadians most urgently need, shed light on any stigma they fear and/or experience when searching for such information, and inform the development of information products and knowledge mobilization strategies tailored to older Canadians’ knowledge needs.
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 | 0.040 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.018 |
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".