Normative Misperceptions About Cannabis Use in a Sample of Risky Cannabis Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study examines normative misperceptions in a sample of participants recruited for a brief intervention trial targeting risky cannabis use. Methods: Participants who were concerned about their own risky cannabis use were recruited to help develop and evaluate intervention materials. At baseline, participants reported on their own cannabis use and provided estimates of how often others their gender and age used cannabis in the past 3 months. Comparisons were made between participants estimates of others cannabis use with reports of cannabis use obtained from a general population survey conducted during a similar time period. Results: Participants (N = 744, mean age = 35.8, 56.2% identified as female) largely reported daily or almost daily cannabis use (82.4%). Roughly half (55.3%) of participants estimated that others their age and gender used cannabis weekly or more often in the past 3 months, whereas the majority of people in the general population reported not using cannabis at all. Conclusions: Normative misperceptions about cannabis use were common in this sample of people with risky cannabis use. Limitations and possible future directions of this research are discussed, as well as the potential for targeting these misperceptions in interventions designed to motivate reductions in cannabis use. ClinicalTrialsorg number: NCT04060602.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".