Bibliographic record
Abstract
The information on child and adolescent smoking prevention and treatment has been analyzed in Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Reviews, which form the key information for this chapter. (1) Interventions in Schools: 94 RCTs were identified; (a) Providing Information: 2/10 were of low or moderate risk of bias and both of these had statistically significant results; (b) Social Competence: 2/3 were at low or moderate risk of bias and the pooled ORs were nonsignificant; (c) Social Influences: 23/56 were at low or moderate risk of bias and pooled ORs were nonsignificant; (d) Social Competence and Social Influences: 10/16 were at low or moderate risk of bias and pooled ORs were nonsignificant; (e) Multimodal (school and communities): 7/9 were at low or moderate risk of bias and 3/4 of those at low risk of bias had statistically significant results. (2) Interventions in Families: 22 RCTs were identified, and 16/22 were at low or moderate risk of bias; (a) Family Intervention vs. Control: 4/9 had statistically significant results; (b) Family vs. School Intervention: 1/5 had statistically significant results; (c) Family plus School Interventions vs. Family: 7/7 had nonsignificant results; (d) Family-Based Risk Reduction vs. Control: 2/2 had statistically significant results. (3) Social Competitions: no methodologically sound studies. (4) Community Interventions: 6/17 had random allocation, and of the 6, one had higher, one lower, and one lower smoking rates in 1 arm. No conclusions could be drawn. (5) Prevention of Tobacco Sales to Minors: 9/35 had random allocation, and of these 7/9 had statistically significant results. (6) Tobacco Advertising: All 9 had longitudinal designs and 7/9 had statistically significant results. (7) Family and Carer Interventions: 30/36 had random allocation and 10/30 had statistically significant results. (8) Tobacco Cessation: 13/15 had random allocation. Of the 13: (a) 5 used cognitive behavioral therapy and all 3 that used the “Not on Tobacco” intervention had statistically significant results; (b) Stages of Change Theory: 2/3 had statistically significant results; (c) Motivational Interviewing: 3/3 had statistically significant results; and (d) Nicotine Patches: 2/2 nonsignificant. (9) Smokeless Tobacco Cessation: 2/2 that used nicotine replacement plus behavioral therapy had statistically significant results.
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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.
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".