Understanding lower-risk cannabis consumption from the consumers' perspective: A rapid evidence assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current rapid evidence assessment, we summarize the existing research on lower-risk cannabis consumption as understood by those who consume cannabis. We identified 7111 unique articles published between 1900 and 2021 using search terms related to a) cannabis consumption, b) beliefs and behaviors, and c) positive outcomes. Twelve articles met our inclusion criteria. Three themes emerged that reflect lower-risk cannabis beliefs and behaviors (informed self-regulation, protective behavioral strategies, and the normalization of cannabis consumption) and one theme reflected motivations that undermine lower-risk cannabis consumption (e.g., using cannabis to cope). Results suggest a need for targeted lower-risk cannabis consumption research—research focused on how those who consume cannabis do so in a positive, non-problematic manner. Such research would help to inform policy and practice and, ultimately, help promote lower-risk cannabis consumption strategies.
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 | 0.045 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".