MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083463457 · doi:10.1097/cxa.0000000000000246

Hazardous Cannabis Use Among University Students: Understanding Differences in Modes, Patterns, and Motivations Related to Use

2025· article· en· W7083463457 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Addiction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversity of CalgaryCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisLogistic regressionHazardous wasteBoredomTest (biology)ConfoundingOddsRecreationEffects of cannabis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objectives: Cannabis is commonly consumed by young adults, and frequency is an important component of hazardous cannabis use. Most Canadian data on this topic have been gathered by general population-based health surveys, focusing on methods, patterns and reasons for cannabis consumption. This study seeks to uncover how these factors predict hazardous cannabis use post-legalization, and how these relationships differ by gender. Methods: We conducted an online survey of 744 Carleton University undergraduate students aged 17 to 29 between February and April 2020. The survey included demographics, the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test Revised (CUDIT-R), and the Cannabis Use Questionnaire (CUQ), an instrument that collects data relating to usage patterns, motivations, and context. Logistic regression was used to investigate which factors were related to hazardous use with adjustment for confounding variables. Results: Of the respondents, 52.4% (n = 390) reported past-month cannabis use, with 44.8% (n = 175) of those using cannabis in the past month exhibiting hazardous patterns. After adjusting for gender and age, the odds of hazardous cannabis use were greater among those with a younger age of first use; with more frequent cannabis use; using dried cannabis; using multiple cannabis products; typically using cannabis alone or both alone and with others; and using cannabis to cope (odds ratio: 4.01, 95% CI:2.32–6.93) or for boredom (odds ratio: 3.58, 95% CI: 1.47–8.76) compared with recreational use. Conclusions: This research reveals novel predictors of hazardous cannabis use among university students postlegalization. Our data may be used to guide future public health messaging to young adults. Objectifs: Le cannabis est couramment consommé par les jeunes adultes, et la fréquence est un élément important de la consommation dangereuse de cannabis. La plupart des données canadiennes sur ce sujet ont été recueillies dans le cadre d’enquêtes générales sur la santé de la population, axées sur les méthodes, les habitudes et les raisons de la consommation de cannabis. Cette étude cherche à découvrir comment ces facteurs prédisent la consommation dangereuse de cannabis après la légalisation, et comment ces relations diffèrent selon le sexe. Méthodes: Nous avons mené une enquête en ligne auprès de 744 étudiants de premier cycle de l’Université de Carleton âgés de 17 à 29 ans entre février et avril 2020. L’enquête comprenait des données démographiques, le Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test Revised (CUDIT-R) et le Cannabis Use Questionnaire (CUQ), un instrument qui recueille des données relatives aux habitudes de consommation, aux motivations et au contexte. Une régression logistique a été utilisée pour déterminer les facteurs liés à une consommation dangereuse, après ajustement des variables confusionnelles. Résultats: Parmi les personnes interrogées, 52,4% (n = 390) ont déclaré avoir consommé du cannabis au cours du dernier mois, et 44,8% (n = 175) d’entre elles présentaient des comportements dangereux. Après ajustement en fonction du sexe et de l'âge, la probabilité d’une consommation dangereuse de cannabis était plus élevée chez les personnes dont l'âge de la première consommation était plus jeune, qui consommaient plus fréquemment du cannabis, qui utilisaient du cannabis séché, qui consommaient plusieurs produits de cannabis, qui consommaient généralement du cannabis seul ou à la fois seul et avec d’autres personnes, et qui consommaient du cannabis pour faire face à une situation (OR:4,01, 95% CI:2,32–6,93) ou par ennui (OR:3,58, 95% CI:1,47–8,76) par rapport à la consommation récréative. Conclusions: Cette étude révèle de nouveaux prédicteurs de la consommation dangereuse de cannabis chez les étudiants universitaires après la légalisation. Nos données peuvent être utilisées pour orienter les futurs messages de santé publique destinés aux jeunes adultes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of AddictionSame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207