Everyday Triangulation within Challenging Informational and Legal Contexts: Exploring Everyday Triangulation in Individuals Considering Cannabis Use during Pregnancy or Lactation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Medical evidence on the risks and benefits of cannabis is limited; existing research is often inconclusive or conflicting. In the United States, cannabis use during pregnancy is stigmatized and often subject to complex legal constraints; these contextual components may have significant effects on information seeking and informed decision‐making processes. This study applies Reflexive Thematic Analysis to 23 telephone interviews with individuals considering cannabis use in pregnancy or lactation to explore their information needs; how adequately those needs were met; and how information triangulation, and other information seeking behaviours, were used to make decisions given the dearth of scientific evidence. Findings suggest that information needs are complex and contextual, and that participants used forms of triangulation that included relational and intuitive elements as well as cognitive assessment processes. A new model of Everyday Triangulation (ET) is presented to represent these complex assessment practices in a holistic manner.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| 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".