An interrupted time series evaluation of the effect of cannabis legalization on intentional self-harm in two Canadian provinces: Ontario and Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the association between cannabis use and higher prevalence of suicidal ideation and attempt, the effect of cannabis legalization and regulation in Canada on intentional self-harm has not been determined. METHODS: We used an interrupted time series of population-based rates of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for intentional self-harm per 100 000 in Ontario and Alberta from January/April 2010 to February 2020. Aggregate monthly counts of ED visits and hospitalizations for intentional self-harm (ICD-10 codes X60-X84, R45.8) were obtained from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System and Discharge Abstract Database, respectively. RESULTS: The legalization and regulation of cannabis in Canada was not significantly associated with a change in rates of ED visits for intentional self-harm in Ontario (level = 0.58, 95% CI: -1.14 to 2.31; trend = -0.17, 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.01) or Alberta (level = -0.06, 95% CI: -2.25 to 2.12; trend = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.13). Hospitalizations for intentional self-harm also remained unchanged in Ontario (level = -0.14, 95% CI: -0.48 to 0.20; trend = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04) and Alberta (level = -0.41, 95% CI: -1.03 to 0.21; trend = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.03). CONCLUSION: Legalization and regulation of cannabis in Canada has not increased rates of ED visits or hospitalizations for intentional self-harm in Ontario and Alberta. Individual-level analyses that account for demographic characteristics and include other provinces and territories are needed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".