MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402484280 · doi:10.1111/joca.12602

The effect size and nonlinearity of the relationship between cannabis consumption and consumer self‐perceived mental health: A study based on eight national surveys in <scp>Canada</scp>

2024· article· en· W4402484280 on OpenAlexaffabout
Qian Deng, Lun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Affairs · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthCannabisConsumption (sociology)PsychologyAdvertisingEnvironmental healthSocial psychologyMarketingBusinessPsychiatryMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous research suggests a negative association between cannabis consumption and consumer mental health, but the magnitude and linearity of this association require further investigation. Therefore, this study analyzed eight suitable national survey datasets from Statistics Canada from 2009 to 2021. In the general population, the mean effect size between cannabis use (yes/no) and self‐perceived mental health is negative but very small in magnitude ( = −0.096). Moreover, in the cannabis user sub‐population, the mean effect size between cannabis usage frequency and mental health is small in magnitude ( = −0.157). More importantly, among cannabis users, a nonlinear negative relationship between cannabis use frequency and mental health was identified. Specifically, as cannabis use becomes more frequent and people's self‐perceived mental health worsens, the association becomes stronger. These findings have significant implications for social marketing and health promotion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer AffairsSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207