The Effects of Stigma: Older Persons and Medicinal Cannabis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis has long been stigmatized as an illicit drug. Since legalization in Canada for both medical and recreational purposes, older adults' cannabis consumption has increased more than any other age group. Yet, it is unclear how the normalization of cannabis has impacted perceptions of stigma for older adults consuming cannabis medicinally. Qualitative description was used to elucidate the experiences of older Canadians aged 60+ related to stigma and their consumption of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews. Data analysis examined how participants managed stigma related to cannabis use. Perceived stigma was evident in many participants' descriptions of their perceptions of cannabis in the past and present, and influenced how they accessed and consumed cannabis and their comfort in discussing its use with their healthcare providers. Participants employed several distinct strategies for managing stigma-concealing, re-framing, re-focusing, and proselytizing. Findings suggest that while medical cannabis consumption is becoming increasingly normalized among older adults, stigma related to cannabis persists and continues to shape older adults' experiences. A culture shift needs to occur among healthcare providers so that they are educated about cannabis and willing to discuss the possibilities of medicinal cannabis consumption with older adults. Otherwise, older adults may seek advice from recreational or other non-medical sources. Healthcare providers require education about the use of medical cannabis, so they can better advise older adults regarding its consumption for medicinal purposes.
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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".