Perceptions about THC and CBD effects among adults with and without prior cannabis experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cannabis is associated with a range of therapeutic and non-therapeutic, positive and negative effects. While some benefits and harms may be specific to individual cannabinoid constituents (THC, CBD), individual expectancies may also play a role. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the extent to which individuals hold expectancies about the effects of CBD, THC, and THC & CBD combined, and whether this differs with prior cannabis experience. METHODS: Canadian adults (N = 345; n = 58 no prior cannabis use, n = 287 prior cannabis use) completed a Qualtrics survey. Participants provided information regarding their expectancies about the effects of cannabinoids (THC, CBD, THC & CBD combined) via a 15-item questionnaire, which included various therapeutic (e.g., helps with pain) and non-therapeutic positive (e.g., enhances positive feelings) and negative (e.g., risk for addiction) effects. They recorded their perceptions about the effects of each cannabinoid on a scale (0="definitely not true", 10="definitely true"). Data was analyzed using linear mixed models. RESULTS: For most therapeutic effects, CBD-containing products (CBD, THC & CBD) were rated higher than THC. For most positive and negative non-therapeutic effects, THC-containing products (THC, THC & CBD) were rated higher than CBD. Those with prior cannabis use (vs no prior use) rated all cannabinoids higher regarding their association with many therapeutic and positive effects, while endorsing weaker expectancies about their role in some negative effects. CONCLUSIONS: Adults endorsed stronger expectancies that CBD-containing products are responsible for producing a rage of therapeutic effects. Those with prior cannabis use experience tended to emphasize the benefits and minimize potential harmful effects of cannabinoids.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".