Cannabis under the influence of yoga : the impact of mindful movement on well-being outcomes after cannabis use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of cannabis use in Canada is high, and there is increasing discussion around the therapeutic use of cannabis to enhance well-being and address mental health concerns. Clinical research and anecdotal reports are equivocal and inconsistent, with both positive and negative impacts on mental health reported. In studies of other psychoactive drugs used therapeutically (i.e., psychedelics) there is considerable attendance to extra-pharmacological factors during the drug experience, as it is well-known that such contextual factors can significantly impact clinical outcomes. In this study, 47 participants self-administered cannabis via the Naturalistic Cannabis Administration Protocol (NCAP) under two conditions that took place one week apart. After consuming cannabis, participants completed a 45-minute yoga practice, and in the control condition participated in activities as usual for 45 minutes (e.g., what they would normally do when high). Within-subjects assessment of well-being outcomes indicated significant improvements in mysticality of experience (F(1,46) = 19.82, p <.001, ηₚ = .30) and state mindfulness (F(1,46) = 34.08, p <.001, ηₚ= .43) following the yoga condition, and no difference in state affect. Results demonstrated that contextual factors can impact well-being outcomes following cannabis administration. These findings suggest that paying attention to contextual factors and providing guidelines for therapeutic cannabis users may improve clinical outcomes when using cannabis to support mental health and well-being.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".