MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409044722 · doi:10.32920/28706498

Canadian nursing students and education in medical and recreational cannabis: a preliminary evidence

2025· preprint· en· W4409044722 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margareth Zanchetta, Kateryna Metersky, Valerie Tan, Stephanie Pedrotti Lucchese, Yana Siganevich, Prashajini Sivasundaram, Truong Thanh Binh Nguyen, Charissa Cordon, Imran Qureshi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationMedical cannabisCannabisPsychologyMedical educationNursingMedicinePsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Explore the interest of Canadian undergraduate and graduate nursing students in medical (MC) and recreational cannabis (RC) education. Methods Transformative learning theory framed an online survey exploring sources of information; factors and learning modalities of increasing interest in learning about MC/RC; and future career plans regarding MC/RC in practice. Survey ran from September 2022 to February 2023. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were applied. Results Respondents (n=153) disclosed knowledge gaps in MC/RC regulations (90 %), effectiveness (88 %), and dosing best practices (86 %). Exposure to clinical opportunities and virtual resources were stimulating learning factors. Conclusions A socially responsive curriculum is crucial to engage nursing students in becoming more knowledgeable about this topic and understand the nurse’s role in enhancing practice quality. Implications for International Audience - The evidence provides a proactive approach to nursing educators in countries where cannabis is legal or in the process of being legalized.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.385 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→