A comparison of adolescent smoking initiation measures on predicting future smoking behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that age at smoking initiation has implications for tobacco use, nicotine dependence, and resulting long-term health and chronic disease outcomes. The objective of the current study was to examine two different measures of smoking onset and to compare their validity in predicting future adolescent smoking survey. METHODS: Data from grades 9-12 students who participated in the 2012/2013 Youth Smoking Survey, a nationally-generalizable Canadian survey, and who had ever tried a cigarette, even a few puffs (n = 8126) were used in a multivariable logistic regression analysis to examine the association between age at smoking onset and current smoking behavior. RESULTS: Both "age at first puff" and "age at first whole cigarette" were significantly associated with current smoking status. Specifically, a delay of one year in the age at first puff was associated with lower odds of being a current smoker by 24% (AOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.73-0.79). Similarly, high school students who smoked their first whole cigarette at old age were less likely to report being a current smoker (AOR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.62-0.71). CONCLUSION: Efforts to prevent smoking uptake among youth, especially younger youth, are especially important in tobacco control efforts.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".