Examining attributes of retailers that influence where cannabis is purchased: a discrete choice experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background With the legalization of cannabis in Canada, consumers are presented with numerous purchase options. Licensed retailers are limited by the Cannabis Act and provincial regulations with respect to offering sales, advertising, location, maximum quantities, and information sharing in an effort to protect public health and safety. The degree these policies influence consumer purchase behavior will help inform regulatory refinement. Methods A discrete choice experiment within a cross-sectional online survey was used to explore trade-offs consumers make when deciding where to purchase cannabis. Attributes included availability of sales/discounts, proximity, product information, customer service, product variety, and provincial regulation. Participants ≥ 19 years old who lived in Canada and purchased cannabis in the previous 12 months were recruited through an online market research survey panel. A multinomial logit (MNL) model was used for the base model, and latent class analysis was used to assess preference sub-groups. Key limitations included ordering effect, hypothetical bias, and framing effect. Results The survey was completed by 1626 people, and the base model showed that customer service carried the most weight in purchase decisions, followed by proximity and availability of sales and discounts. There was considerable heterogeneity in preference patterns, with a five-group latent class model demonstrating best fit. Only one group (15% of sample) placed a high value on the store being provincially regulated, while three groups were willing to make a trade-off with regulation to access better customer service, product information, or closer proximity. One group preferred non-regulated sources (24% of sample); this group was also primarily driven by the availability of sales and discounts. Three groups (60.5% of sample) preferred online stores. Conclusion This study highlighted that there exists significant diversity with respect to the influence of consumer experiences on cannabis purchase behaviors. Modifications to cannabis retail regulations that focus on improving access to product information as well as reviewing limitations on sales and discounts could have the most impact for shifting customers to licensed retailers.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".