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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".