Medical Cannabis in Canadian Schools: A Scoping Review of Existing Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: An increasing number of children and youth in Canada are taking medical cannabis for complex medical conditions. While they deserve safe and consistent access to pharmacotherapy throughout the day, administrative policies on cannabis use in schools are inconsistent. A scoping review identified policies and publications associated with medical cannabis in Canadian schools. Methods: Five databases (Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science) were searched to identify scientific literature. Legislation in each province and territory and Ministry of Education webpages were reviewed for pertinent laws and policies regarding cannabis use in schools. Results: The scientific search resulted in 1289 articles. The five included articles pertain to implications for school nurses in the United States, which are not relevant to the Canadian context. A search of Ministry of Education websites identified only one policy with information regarding medical cannabis in schools (from Ontario). Federal legislation (the Cannabis Act ) does not specifically address medical cannabis in schools, and there is a lack of consistency in terminology and clarity within provincial and territorial laws. All provinces and territories prohibit smoking and vaping of cannabis on school property and some provinces prohibit any method of cannabis consumption. Conclusions: In Canada, there is a lack of guidance for medical cannabis administration, storage, and disposal in schools, with some policies explicitly prohibiting this type of treatment. This shifts the burden to families to individually create plans school by school. A federally harmonized approach to supporting children who take cannabis for medical purposes ought to be explored.
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".