MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415260658 · doi:10.1177/0192513x251389212

Mothers of Adolescents With Cannabis Use Disorder: Exploring Public Perceptions of Maternal Responsibility

2025· article· en· W4415260658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Molly K. Downey, Olivia C. Bishop, Taylor G. J. Anthony, Brooke B. Hiscock, Isobel D. McMahon, Ashlee R. L. Coles, Nick Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlameShameVignetteThematic analysisPerceptionContext (archaeology)Qualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Substance use disorders (SUD) are often attributed to upbringing and family dynamics, an assumption that places undue responsibility on parents. Mothers may be particularly susceptible to blame due to traditional gender norms around parenting. This qualitative study explored public perceptions of maternal responsibility and shame in the context of adolescent SUD. Participants were 80 Canadian adults recruited during a larger online survey. After reading a vignette describing a mother and her adolescent child with cannabis use disorder (CUD), participants answered two open-ended prompts exploring perceptions of maternal responsibility and shame. An inductive thematic analysis revealed mixed and complex opinions regarding maternal responsibility, with themes highlighting the nature and etiology of addiction, the mother’s role in prevention and recovery, societal tendencies to parent blame, and the detrimental effects of shame and stigma. The current findings highlight the need to challenge public beliefs regarding SUD to reduce parental blame and stigmatization.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207