Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article reports trends in smoking prevalence and smoking restrictions in Canada since 2000, and examines associations between home and workplace restrictions and smoking cessation. DATA SOURCES: Data are from the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey and the longitudinal component of the National Population Health Survey. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Trends in smoking prevalence and smoking restrictions were calculated. Associations between home and workplace smoking restrictions and smoking cessation were examined in the context of the Transtheoretical Model, which proposes that smokers go through five distinct stages in attempting to quit. The likelihood of current and former smokers being at specific stages was studied in relation to smoking restrictions at home and at work. Longitudinal data were used to determine if home and workplace smoking restrictions were predictors of quitting over a two-year period. MAIN RESULTS: Since 2000, Canadians smokers have faced a growing number of restrictions on where they can smoke. Bans at home and at work were associated with a reduced likelihood of being in the initial "stages of change," and an increased likelihood of being in the latter stages. Smokers who reported newly smoke-free homes or workplaces were more likely to quit over the next two years, compared with those who did not encounter such restrictions at home or at work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".