Age Differences in Cannabis-Related Perceptions, Knowledge, and Sources of Information Among Adults in the Postlegalization Era in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals access and perceive information about cannabis differently according to age groups. This study compared differences in beliefs and knowledge regarding cannabis and exposure to information, advertisement, and prevention messages among emerging (18-24 years old), prime-age (25-44), middle-age (45-64), and old-age adults (65 and older). METHOD: = 2,001) completed online questionnaires regarding their sociodemographic characteristics, mental health perception, cannabis use, sources of cannabis information, and exposure to advertisement and prevention messages. Bivariate analyses allowed the detection of differences among the age groups. RESULTS: Emerging adults exhibited more positive attitudes regarding cannabis and were more knowledgeable regarding cannabis facts than their older counterparts. Online media constituted the principal source of information for the overall sample. Health resources were the most trusted information source for all age groups, but only one fifth of the sample consulted them. A higher proportion of emerging adults were exposed to cannabis advertisements and prevention messages. Old-age adults were more likely to be reached through traditional media. CONCLUSIONS: As perceptions and beliefs about cannabis, information access, and exposure to advertisement or prevention messages vary across age groups, effective prevention and education should be tailored accordingly. Health resources and scientific literature about cannabis should become more accessible and understandable to the general population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".