Disparities in Cannabis Use among Female and Male Sexual Minority Young Adults in the US: The Role of Parenting Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Despite cannabis use disparities among sexual minority (SM; vs. heterosexual) young adults (SMYAs), little research has explored social influences contributing to these disparities. This study examined sexual identity subgroup differences in parenting behaviors and associations among parenting behaviors and cannabis use behaviors among YA subgroups. Methods: =228; 11.0% bisexual, 13.2% gay) YAs (ages 18-29) recruited via social media from 6 US cities. Bivariate analyses examined differences in perceived parenting (psychological control, behavioral control, knowledge, autonomy support, warmth, communication, cannabis disapproval), any past-month (current) cannabis use, and current cannabis use frequency across sexual identity subgroups. Multivariable regression examined associations among sexual identity and parenting behaviors with cannabis use outcomes. Results: Among female YAs, bisexual (vs. heterosexual) YAs had greater odds of cannabis use, reported more frequent use, and reported greater parental psychological control and less behavioral control, autonomy support, warmth, and communication; greater psychological control was associated with both outcomes; less autonomy support was associated with current use; and less warmth and communication were associated with use frequency. Among male YAs, gay and bisexual (vs. heterosexual) YAs had greater odds of current use and reported more frequent use and greater psychological control; gay (vs. heterosexual) YAs reported greater behavioral control and less autonomy support, warmth, and communication; and greater psychological control and less warmth and communication were associated with both outcomes. Conclusions: Cannabis prevention/cessation programs should target specific parenting behaviors that differentially impact cannabis use outcomes among specific SMYA subgroups.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".