Emotional Psychopathology and Coping Cannabis Use Motives Are Involved in the Link Between Anxiety Sensitivity and Adverse Cannabis-Related Outcomes in Canadian Emerging Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cannabis use and related problems are prevalent among Canadian emerging adults. Investigating risk factors for cannabis use and related problems, such as personality traits, is important for earlier risk mitigation in this vulnerable population. Anxiety sensitivity (AS) is associated with adverse cannabis outcomes in emerging adults, though the mechanisms driving this effect remain unclear. Theory linking AS to cannabis use and related problems through emotional (i.e., anxiety and/or depression) symptoms and negative reinforcement motivations for use (i.e., coping and conformity) required testing. Methods: N = 481 undergraduates completed online self-report measures. A chained indirect effects path analysis model was run with AS specified as the independent variable, cannabis-related problems and cannabis use frequency as correlated dependent variables, and emotional psychopathology and cannabis use motives as intermediate variables; bias-corrected bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals tested the presence/magnitude of indirect effects. Results: Consistent with hypotheses, AS was indirectly associated with both cannabis use frequency and cannabis-related problems through emotional psychopathology and, in turn, coping motives for cannabis use, with no evidence of a remaining direct pathway. Contrary to hypotheses, no indirect effects through conformity motives were observed. Conclusions: Results suggest that emerging adults higher in AS are at increased risk for more frequent and problematic cannabis use due to their increased propensity to use cannabis to cope with anxiety and/or depression, implicating both emotional symptoms and coping motives as potential targets for personality-matched cannabis use risk mitigation efforts.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".