MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W121832821

Second-hand smoke: how damaging is it to health?

2005· article· en· W121832821 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Percival, Bridget Queally

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)International agencyQuarter (Canadian coin)Public healthEnvironmental healthPopulationPublic opinionSmokeTobacco smokePolitical sciencePublic relationsMedicineCancerGeographySociologyNursingLawSocial sciencePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 20th century, over half the English population smoked, but this figure has now dropped to a quarter (Office for National Statistics, 2003). A combination of scientific evidence, health education campaigns and larger warnings on cigarette packets has contributed to achieving this change. Public opinion has also shifted dramatically, and most people now accept that being a smoker is damaging to health. In 1992, the World Health Organization International Agency for Research and Cancer classified second-hand smoke as being 'carcinogenic' to humans (WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2002). Following this report, New York became one of the first cities in the world to introduce a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places to protect employees. In the UK, however, many employees, including nurses, are still routinely exposed to tobacco smoke in the workplace.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→