The Dependence on Smokeless Tobacco in the South Asian Communities in East London
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to understand the dependency on smokeless tobacco. METHODS: The major aspect of the interview was to study the type of chewing tobacco used, frequency of purchase of chewing tobacco, change in attitude and behavior after the use of chewing tobacco. This study was done in 2005 in London. Of the 110 respondents interviewed 88 were used for the data analysis. STUDY DESIGN: An exploratory study was conducted in East London, United Kingdom. The selected sample was interviewed through a questionnaire, based on the Severson Smokeless Tobacco Dependence Scale. RESULTS: Cross tabulations report that in a sample of 88 South Asian UK resident men 46.6% used leaf (paan), 43.2% used processed form of chewing tobacco and 10.2% used gutka. Older age (67%) respondents were more likely than the younger age (30%) respondents to chew tobacco. The frequency of purchase of chewing tobacco is reported high (67.2%) in the older age group than the younger age group (50%). CONCLUSION: This current study used an amended form of the Severson Smokeless Tobacco Scale questionnaire to study the dependency on smokeless tobacco. The study could be developed in the selection of the sample, which would include both males and females to study the dependency on smokeless tobacco.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".