MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406698587 · doi:10.1177/00914509241312872

“Becoming a Medical Cannabis User” Revisited: Understanding the Role of Low-Threshold Access Points in British Columbia, Canada

2025· article· en· W4406698587 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marilou Gagnon, Heather Hobbs

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Drug Problems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCannabisRecreationPsychologySample (material)Qualitative researchMedical educationGerontologyPsychiatryMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work of sociologist Howard Becker has been used extensively to study and theorize the experience of using cannabis for recreational purposes and more recently, the experience of using cannabis for medical purposes. Building on recent research that uses Becker's work to study and theorize the process of becoming a medical cannabis use r , we extracted and analyzed interview data from a larger qualitative case study of low-threshold access points (i.e., medical dispensaries and cannabis clubs) in British Columbia (Canada). The majority of participants were 50 years or older, had an annual income of less than $30,000, listed disability assistance as their primary source of income, and were renting a room or an apartment. Educational level was distributed across the sample and gender representation was close to balanced with seven cisgender women and five cisgender men. All of the participants identified as White (European descent). In terms of cannabis consumption, the majority of participants reported using daily and indicated a preference for ingesting cannabis, followed by smoking and applying topically. Our theory-informed analysis suggests that becoming a medical cannabis user is a process that requires low-threshold access to community, medicine, and space—three domains across which learning unfolds, in relationships (with staff and peers) and in response to health and social needs. Our analysis also points to three categories of learning: learning about medical cannabis, learning to medicate, and learning to substitute. Overall, our findings indicate that learning across all three categories and low-threshold access to community, medicine, and space go hand in hand in the process of becoming a medical cannabis user—thus generating new theoretical insights and empirical avenues. The findings also raise important questions about the closure of low-threshold access points in British Columbia and the impact of cannabis legalization more generally.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0400.015
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Drug ProblemsSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207