MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W130099480 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.2.101

E-cigarettes: Are we renormalizing public smoking? Reversing five decades of tobacco control and revitalizing nicotine dependency in children and youth in Canada

2015· article· en· W130099480 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Stanwick

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNicotineElectronic cigaretteHealth hazardTobacco controlMedicinePublic healthEnvironmental healthPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) is a battery attached to a chamber containing liquid that may (or may not) contain nicotine. The battery heats the liquid and converts it into a vapour, which is inhaled, mimicking tobacco smoking. The e-cigarette does not rely on tobacco as a source of nicotine but, rather, vaporizes a liquid for inhalation. E-liquids are often flavoured and may contain nicotine in various concentrations, although actual amounts are seldom accurately reflected in container labelling. The deleterious effects of nicotine on paediatric health are well established. The use of e-cigarettes in the paediatric age group is on the rise in Canada, as are associated nicotine poisonings. E-devices generate substantial amounts of fine particulate matter, toxins and heavy metals at levels that can exceed those observed for conventional cigarettes. Children and youth are particularly susceptible to these atomized products. Action must be taken before these devices become a more established public health hazard. Policies to denormalize tobacco smoking in society and historic reductions in tobacco consumption may be undermined by this new 'gateway' product to nicotine dependency.

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)0.001
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 score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207