Smoking restrictions on campus: changes and challenges at three Canadian universities, 1970-2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the restriction of smoking on university campuses in the Canadian context. Indoor smoking on campus is now completely prohibited by law, and universities are increasingly moving to restrict, or prohibit, outdoor smoking on their grounds. The research focuses on three case studies to identify changes in spatial restrictions on campus smoking over the last four decades (1970-2010), and to determine the challenges involved in establishing bans in outdoor areas of campus. The three universities were selected for their different approaches to the issue of outdoor smoking. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with 36 key informants, conducted from September 2010 to January 2011, supplemented by documentary information. Interview data were analysed thematically. Protection against environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) on campus proceeded incrementally, via policy-making at the provincial, municipal and institutional levels. Historically, institutional bans on indoor smoking were particularly significant, but their health benefits could be limited by the presence of private property on campus. Universities continue to initiate smoking restrictions today, with respect to outdoor bans. However, respondents reported myriad challenges in developing, implementing and maintaining such bans. Five principal concerns were articulated: the need for ongoing policy communication; management of community relations as smokers are displaced from campus; enforcement to ensure that the policy has practical effect; safety concerns; and difficulties relating to campus layout. Because challenges are diverse and contextual, effective protection against outdoor ETS on campus is likely to require an ongoing commitment on the part of administrators.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".