Early Birds and Night Owls: Distinguishing Profiles of Cannabis Use Habits by Use Times with Latent Class Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Understanding, predicting, and reducing the harms associated with cannabis use is an important field of study. Timing (i.e., hour of day and day of week) of substance use is an established risk factor of severity of dependence. However, there has been little attention paid to morning use of cannabis and its associations with negative consequences. Objectives: The goal of the present study was to examine whether distinct classifications of cannabis use habits exist based on timing, and whether these classifications differ on cannabis use indicators, motives for using cannabis, use of protective behavioral strategies, and cannabis-related negative outcomes. Methods: Latent class analyses were conducted on four independent samples of college student cannabis users (Project MOST 1, N=2,056; Project MOST 2, N=1846; Project PSST, N=1,971; Project CABS, N=1,122). Results: Results determined that a 5-class solution best fit the data within each independent sample consisting of the classes: (1) "Daily-morning use",(2) "Daily-non-morning use", (3) "Weekend-morning use", (4) "Weekend-night use", and (5) "Weekend-evening use." Classes endorsing daily and/or morning use reported greater use, negative consequences and motives, while those endorsing weekend and/or non-morning use reported the most adaptive outcomes (i.e., reduced frequency/quantity of use, fewer consequences experienced, and fewer cannabis use disorder symptoms endorsed). Conclusions: Recreational daily use as well as morning use may be associated with greater negative consequences, and there is evidence that most college students who use cannabis do avoid these types of use. The results of the present study offer evidence that timing of cannabis use may be a pertinent factor in determining harms associated with use.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".