The Readings of Smoking Fathers: A Reception Analysis of Tobacco Cessation Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine how new fathers decode image-based anti-smoking messages and uncover the extent to which ideals of masculinity might influence men to take up and/or disregard smoking cessation messages. The authors analyzed 5 images that had been used to promote smoking cessation and arrived at a consensus about the dominant discourse encoded by each image. During face-to-face interviews, new fathers were invited to discuss the images; these interview data were coded and analyzed using a social constructionist gender analysis. The study findings highlight how most men negotiated or opposed dominant discourses of health that communicated the dangers of smoking by reproducing dominant ideals of masculinity, including explicit disregard for self-health. They accepted dominant social discourses of fathering that reproduced traditional notions of masculinity, such as the protector and provider. The authors conclude that tobacco interventions targeted to new fathers must (a) develop more awareness of the ability of audiences to select discourses that empower their own interpretive positioning with regard to media, and (b) deconstruct and engage with context and age-specific masculine ideals to avoid providing rationales for continued tobacco use.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".