Translating the lived experience of illicit drinkers into program guidance for cannabis substitution: Experiences from the Canadian Managed Alcohol Program Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A small but growing body of research has suggested the potential for cannabis substitution to support Managed Alcohol Program (MAP) service users to reduce acute and chronic alcohol-related harms. In 2022, researchers from the Canadian Managed Alcohol Program Study (CMAPS) noted a dearth of accessible, alcohol-specific educational resources to support service users and program staff to implement cannabis substitution pilots at several MAP sites in Canada. In this essay, we draw on over 10-years of collaboration between CMAPS, and organizations of people with lived experience (the Eastside Illicit Drinkers Group for Education (EIDGE) and SOLID Victoria) to describe our experiences co-creating cannabis education resources where none existed to support MAP sites interested in beginning to provide cannabis to participants. The research team relied on the unique lived experiences and informal cannabis-related harm reduction strategies described by EIDGE and SOLID members to create cannabis education resources that were accurate and relevant to MAP sites. EIDGE was familiar with creating peer-oriented educational resources and convened meetings and focus groups to engage peers. CMAPS research team members created standard cannabis unit equivalencies to support program delivery, and clinical advisors ensured that the stated risks and benefits of cannabis substitution, as well as tapering guidance for withdrawal management, were safe and feasible. The collaboration ultimately produced tailored client-facing and provider-facing resources. Our experience demonstrates that the lived expertise of drinkers can play an integral role in creating alcohol harm reduction informational materials, specifically those related to cannabis substitution, when combined with data from rigorous, community-based programs of research like CMAPS. We close by listing additional considerations for cannabis substitution program design for MAP settings emerging from this process of collaboration between illicit drinkers, service providers, clinicians, and researchers for consideration by other programs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".