Examining gender differences in emerging tobacco use using the adolescents' need for smoking scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the influence of gender on emerging tobacco use by testing for gender-based measurement invariance of the Adolescents' Need for Smoking Scale (ANSS) and examining gender differences on each dimension across increasing levels of amount smoked. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Thirteen secondary schools located in British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Data from 1425 youth who reported smoking at least once in the past month. MEASUREMENTS: Survey questions about demographic characteristics, tobacco smoking history and need for smoking. FINDINGS: The multi-dimensional structure of the ANSS is equivalent in boys and girls and the ANSS questions are not gender-biased. There were no significant gender differences in the levels of physical dependence across increasing levels of amount smoked. Girls scored higher than boys on levels of emotional dependence across increasing levels of life-time cigarette exposure. Girls also had higher scores on the social dimension of the ANSS compared to boys among those who smoked 100 or more cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian girls score higher than boys on measures of emotional dependence and social attitudes associated with tobacco smoking.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".