Canada's youth up in smoke: The decriminalization of cannabis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Government of Canada's proposed reforms on cannabis laws suggests that alternative penalties for youth possessing small amounts of cannabis would include a fine and a notification to parents. The penalties are more severe if a youth is in possession of cannabis while driving a car or near a school. The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) supports these reforms because they will reduce youth involvement in the criminal justice system. However, this assertion should not be viewed as a tacit approval of cannabis use among youth without penalty. Canadian paediatricians firmly believe that cannabis use is a harmful, risky practice among adolescents, especially those youth at risk of engaging in multiple risky behaviours (1–3). What is clear is that cannabis use is harmful to the health of Canada's adolescents and the impact of the proposed changes to the laws on youth needs to be carefully monitored. Preliminary research suggests that cannabis use by adolescents whose pubertal brain development is yet to be completed may predispose them to dependency and addictions. According to the McCreary Centre Society, a study conducted in British Columbia indicates an increase in the frequency of cannabis use by adolescents in the 1990's from 25% to 40% over the decade (4). During this same period, the age of first use has decreased. In 1992, 10% of 13-year-olds in that province had used cannabis but, by 1998, their use had increased to 20% (5).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".