Links Between Self-Control, Cannabis Use and Methods of Consumption in University Students Who Use Alcohol: A 14-week Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study used a semester-long EMA design to test for differences in self-control (measured by a stop-signal task and perceived self-control demands) in undergraduate students on days they do and do not use cannabis, as well as adjusting for students own typical levels of cannabis use.Differences in self-control were further assessed across methods of consumption (e.g., inhalation vs. ingestion vs. concentrates) on days when students used cannabis.Data from n=196 undergraduates (Mage=20.6;63.3% female) across 14 weekends in 2021 was examined using Multilevel Modelling to accommodate repeated measures nested within individuals.In this longitudinal design using objective and subjective measures, findings revealed no meaningful differences in self-control among students who did and did not use cannabis, and across the various methods of consumption.Effects were within the smallest effect size of interest limits and results provide reassurance that recreational or occasional cannabis use likely isn't related to self-control.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".