Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tobacco and cannabis smoke are both complex chemical mixtures generated through combustion of biomass material. The presence of free radicals in tobacco smoke has been established for nearly seven decades. Despite similarities between cannabis and tobacco smoke and the known presence of radicals in the latter, analysis of free radicals in cannabis smoke has yet to be conducted. In this work, electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy was used to detect short-lived radicals and environmentally persistent free radicals (EPFRs) in cannabis smoke. Spin-trapping techniques were employed to aid in identification of the short-lived radicals. Congruent with findings from studies conducted on tobacco smoke, short-lived free radicals were detected in the gas phase, and EPFRs were detected in the particle phase of cannabis smoke. Gas phase results indicate the presence of oxygen-centered radicals in cannabis smoke, though the shape of the resulting EPR spectra differs slightly from that of tobacco smoke. Particle phase results for cannabis match well with those from previous studies conducted on tobacco smoke, regardless of the spin trap used (or lack thereof). Quantitative findings indicate that cannabis smoke contains approximately the same radical concentration as tobacco smoke, on the order of 10 15 gas-phase spins and 10 14 particle-phase spins per cannabis preroll or tobacco cigarette. The impacts of burning method (continuous vs puffing) and cannabinoid composition on radical concentrations were also investigated here. While puffing was observed to lower radical concentrations, the cannabinoid composition of the strain of cannabis burned had no observable impact on the amount or identity of free radicals detected.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".