Academic achievement and smoking initiation in adolescence: a general growth mixture analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aims to: (i) explore the relations between smoking initiation and different profiles of academic achievement trajectories in early to mid-adolescence; and (ii) to investigate whether background characteristics (gender, ethnicity, grade repetition, parental education) and proximal processes (parental practices, extra-curricular involvement) predicted class membership and smoking initiation. DESIGN: Four-year longitudinal cohort study (7th-10th grade). SETTING: Adolescents completed the questionnaires during school hours. PARTICIPANTS: At total of 741 adolescents with no history of smoking in grade 7 participating in the Montreal Adolescent Depression Development Project. MEASUREMENTS: Self-report questionnaires were used to assess predictors and previous smoking in year 1, and smoking initiation by the end of the study. Grade point average (GPA) was obtained twice yearly from school records. FINDINGS: Three academic achievement trajectories were identified and found to differ significantly in rates of smoking initiation: persistently high achievers (7.1% smoking), average achievers (15.1% smokers) and unstable low achievers (49.1% smoking). Further, results showed that general parenting practices and parental education indirectly reduced the likelihood of smoking by reducing the risk of membership in classes with lower GPA. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who do well in school are less likely to smoke and it may be cost-effective for smoking prevention to focus on the few (12%) easy to identify unstable low achievers who form 35% of smoking onsets. In addition, as parental support and democratic control reduced the likelihood of poor academic performance, promoting essential generic parenting skills from a young age may also prevent future onsets of smoking in adolescence.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".