Exploring the interaction between cannabis and music
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis use has long been associated with enhanced music experiences, yet scientific research on its effects on auditory perception remains limited. This convergent mixed-methods self-report study investigated how recreational cannabis users experience auditory stimulation and music in particular. A total of 104 participants completed an online questionnaire, 15 of which were selected to participate in an optional semi-structured interview. Quantitative analyses showed that listening to music was the most commonly reported activity while high, indicated by 45% of participants. Participants reported significantly greater hearing sensitivity (p < 0.001) and state absorption in music (p < 0.001) while high compared to sober. Higher trait absorption in music was associated with greater state absorption in music while high. Qualitative thematic analysis identified four main themes: (1) altered cognitive processes and reinterpretations, (2) auditory perceptual effects from new sensations to sensory overload, (3) emotional openness, sensitivity, and regulation, and (4) embodiment, immersion, and out-of-body dissociation. This study provides a novel theoretical framework to understand the complex interactions between cannabis and musical experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".