MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385551540 · doi:10.1177/00178969231191085

Canadian cannabis education resources to support youth health literacy: A scoping review and environmental scan

2023· review· en· W4385551540 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Emily Howe, Lisa Bishop, Bethany S. Torraville, Emily C. Rowe, Eden Kinzel, Jennifer Donnan

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsCannabisMental healthPsychologyHarmLiteracyHarm reductionMedicinePublic healthPsychiatryNursingPedagogySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The 2018 legalisation of cannabis in Canada sparked concern and conversation about the potential negative impacts of youth cannabis use. It is clear that young people are already engaging in cannabis use for a variety of reasons; therefore, youth cannabis education is desirable to promote harm reduction and reduce the risk of adverse physical and mental health outcomes. Objective: To identify and categorise Canadian cannabis education resources using a social-ecological approach informed by the youth health literacy framework, considering multiple factors at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels that influence health literacy and impact behaviour. Methods: In line with scoping review methodology, database searches and an environmental scan of materials were completed. Specific inclusion criteria were identified to encompass all Canadian cannabis education resources directed towards young people aged 9-18 years and adults in contact with youth. Results: A total of 60 resources were identified and categorised using the youth health literacy framework in terms of their focus on (1) micro influences (resources for youth); (2) meso influences (resources for teachers, parents, mentors); and (3) macro influences (resources for indigenous communities and medical professionals). Conclusions: While many resources were identified, issues exist with the accessibility, quality and multicultural considerations of such resources, warranting the development of comprehensive, evidence-based and harm reduction-focused cannabis education for youth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0230.033
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Education JournalSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207