MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965139575 · doi:10.1037/0893-164x.16.3.187

A comparison of the mediational properties of four adolescent smoking expectancy measures.

2002· article· en· W1965139575 on OpenAlexaff
Donald W. Hine, Antoinette McKenzie‐Richer, John Lewko, Kate Tilleczek, Lynn Perreault

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Addictive Behaviors · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyOperationalizationExpectancy theoryMediationDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This prospective study compared the ability of 4 smoking expectancy measures to mediate the influence of peer, parent, and current smoking on adolescents' cigarette use 3 months later. No evidence for mediation was found when expectancies were operationalized as unidimensional subjective expected utility (SEU), multidimensional SEU, or unidimensional SEU decomposed into probability and desirability main effects and their interaction. Evidence for partial mediation was found for the decomposed multidimensional SEU measure. The results suggest that (a) peer and current cigarette use may influence future smoking indirectly through adolescents' probability estimates that smoking will control negative emotions and (b) the relationship between current and future smoking also may be mediated by adolescents' beliefs about the desirability of weight control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.228
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Addictive BehaviorsSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207