Smoking environments in transition: the experiences of recent Chinese migrants to Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International migrants experience first-hand differences between countries in terms of the social meanings, spatial regulation and prevalence of smoking. This research centred on the smoking-related perceptions, experiences and behaviours of recent migrants from China to Canada. Eight focus groups were held in Edmonton, Alberta, in July-October 2013 to explore migrants' understandings of the practices and meanings of smoking in both countries. There were 58 participants (37 non-smokers and 21 smokers), most of whom were international students. Qualitative content analysis of focus group transcripts was undertaken to identify key themes. Participants observed that smoking remains almost ubiquitous in China due to ineffective spatial restrictions and the social importance of smoking among men. By contrast, smoking bans in Canada were perceived as effective due to widespread compliance and expectations of enforcement. They were conscious that male smoking was both less prevalent and less socially valued in Canada; conversely, female smoking was perceived as more accepted in Canada than in China. There was broad agreement that smoking was tolerated in Canada, provided it occurred in appropriate places. Complying with widespread spatial restrictions brought about changes in smokers' behaviours: they smoked less often, and consumed fewer cigarettes. Because smoking was more difficult to perform, participants thought the Canadian context supported quitting. Non-smokers were enthusiastic about smoke-free environments in Canada, and had become acculturated to air that did not smell of smoke. These findings affirm the importance of comprehensive smoking bans, backed by enforcement, in contributing to the denormalisation of smoking and the protection of non-smokers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".