The added value of accounting for activity space when examining the association between tobacco retailer availability and smoking among young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a declining prevalence in many countries, smoking rates remain consistently high among young adults. Targeting contextual influences on smoking, such as the availability of tobacco retailers, is one promising avenue of intervention. Most studies have focused on residential or school neighbourhoods, without accounting for other settings where individuals spend time, that is, their activity space. We investigated the association between tobacco retailer availability in the residential neighbourhood and in the activity space, and smoking status. METHODS: Cross-sectional baseline data from 1994 young adults (aged 18-25) participating in the Interdisciplinary Study of Inequalities in Smoking (Montreal, Canada, 2011-2012) were analysed. Residential and activity locations served to derive two measures of tobacco retailer availability: counts within 500 m buffers and proximity to the nearest retailer. Prevalence ratios for the association between each tobacco retailer measure and smoking status were estimated using log-binomial regression. RESULTS: Participants encountering high numbers of tobacco retailers in their residential neighbourhood, and both medium and high retailer counts in their activity space, were more likely to smoke compared to those exposed to fewer retailers. While residential proximity was not associated with smoking, we found 36% and 42% higher smoking prevalence among participants conducting activities within medium and high proximity to tobacco retailers compared to those conducting activities further from such outlets. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the sparse literature on contextual correlates of smoking among young adults, and illustrates the added value of considering individuals' activity space in contextual studies of 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 | 0.018 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".