Why Use Cannabis? Examining Motives for Cannabis Use in Individuals with Anxiety Disorders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined cannabis use motives in individuals with anxiety disorders and compared motives between infrequent and frequent cannabis users. It was hypothesised that coping motives would be endorsed at a significantly higher rate than other motives, and that frequent cannabis users would endorse coping motives significantly more than infrequent users. Participants were 144 adults seeking clinical services for anxiety disorders who reported using cannabis. Cannabis use was categorized by infrequent ( n = 54) and frequent ( n = 90) use. Anxiety symptoms were assessed and deemed clinically significant. Participants completed measures of cannabis use motives, cannabis use patterns, and cannabis use disorder symptoms, cross-sectionally. Cannabis use motives were examined for the entire sample and compared between frequent and infrequent users. In general, cannabis users endorsed coping (i.e., use for managing distress) and enhancement (i.e., use for fun, pleasant feeling, or the high) motives at equal rates ( p = .265) and more than other motives ( p < .001). Frequent users reported using cannabis for coping and expansion motives (i.e., use to change one's thinking) significantly more than infrequent users. These results indicate that individuals with anxiety disorders use cannabis for various reasons, some of which may not be directly related to their mental health symptoms. Future research is needed to compare motives for cannabis use in those with anxiety disorders, other mental health populations, and the general population, as well as examine motives for cannabis use within specific anxiety disorders.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it