Expectancies of the Effects of Cannabis Use in Individuals with Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has indicated that anticipating positive effects from cannabis use may be linked with increased frequency of cannabis consumption, yet these expectancies remain poorly understood in adults with social anxiety disorder (SAD). Thus, our study aimed to investigate the expectancies of the effects of cannabis use in 26 frequently using adults with SAD (age: 27.9 ± 7.3 years; 54% female) and 26 (age: 27.4 ± 6.7 years; 50% female) without. While no between-group differences were observed, both groups reported expecting tension reduction and relaxation (F = 0.001; p = 0.974), cravings, and physical effects (F = 1.10; p = 0.300), but denied global negative effects (F = 0.11; p = 0.744). The trajectory of cannabis use perceptions (further investigated in 12/26 participants/group) also showed no between-group differences. Before the initial use, positive perceptions may have led to initial and continuous cannabis consumption, while the symptoms of cannabis use disorder may have contributed to repeated use. Our data indicate that, regardless of psychiatric history, frequent cannabis-using adults are more likely to report positive expectancies, which are often associated with increased patterns of cannabis consumption. Psychoeducational programs and openly discussing the risks of cannabis may be beneficial in preventing and/or reducing cannabis use in people with SAD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".