Comparison of perceptions in Canada and USA regarding cannabis and edibles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada took a national approach to recreational cannabis that resulted in official legalization on October 17, 2018. In the United States (US), the approach has been more piecemeal, with individual states passing their own laws regulating adult use. The objective of this study was to compare the two jurisdictions. METHODS: Two exploratory, quantitative surveys were administered in May of 2021 in both Canada and the US. One thousand forty-seven Canadian and 1037 US residents (age 19 and older) were surveyed on approaches to and attendant regulations of consumer cannabis. Tests of significance were performed to analyze differences between two groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences exist between the two countries in terms of cannabis legalization acceptance. Usage rates among adults was similar with 45% of Canadians and 42% of Americans confirming they consume cannabis. Respondents maintain that they intend to increase their usage, with edibles attracting a rising level of interest from consumers. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that public policy in both Canada and the USA needs to change to reflect rapidly evolving acceptance of cannabis products in North America to realize potential economic returns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".