Geographic clustering of cannabis stores in Canadian cities: A spatial analysis of the legal cannabis market 4 years post‐legalisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Following the legalisation of non-medical cannabis in 2018, the number of cannabis stores in Canada has rapidly expanded with limited regulation on their geographic placement. This study characterised the clustering of cannabis stores in Canadian cities and evaluated the association of clustering with provincial policy and sociodemographic variables. METHODS: Cross-sectional spatial analysis of cannabis store density in dissemination areas ('neighbourhoods', n = 39,226) in Canadian cities in September 2022. Cannabis store density was defined as the count of stores within 1000 m of a neighbourhood centre. Clusters of high-density cannabis retail were identified using Local Indicators of Spatial Autocorrelation. Associations between provincial policy (privatised vs. public market), sociodemographic variables and cannabis store density were evaluated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Clusters of high-density cannabis retail were identified in 86% of Canadian cities, and neighbourhoods in clusters had a median of 5 stores within 1000 m. Toronto, Canada's most populous city, had the most extreme clustering where neighbourhoods in clusters had a median of 10 stores (and a maximum of 25 stores) within 1000 m. Neighbourhoods in private versus public retail markets had a significantly higher neighbourhood-level density of cannabis stores (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 63.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 25.66-156.33). Lower neighbourhood income quintile was also associated with a higher neighbourhood-level density of cannabis stores (Q5 vs. Q1, aRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17-1.40). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Since cannabis was legalised, clusters of high-density cannabis retail have emerged in most Canadian cities and were more likely to form lower income neighbourhoods and in private retail markets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".