Fathers’ narratives of reducing and quitting smoking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite much attention on women's efforts to reduce or stop smoking during pregnancy and postpartum, less attention has been directed to fathers' experiences in modifying their smoking. Using narrative methods, interviews with 29 new fathers were examined to identify different ways in which men approached reducing or quitting smoking. Four storylines were identified: the cold turkey storyline framed quitting smoking as a snap decision with no need for support or smoking cessation aids; the planned reduction storyline focused on building up reasons to quit and developing detailed strategies to enhance the likelihood of success; the baby as the patch storyline dramatised how the baby displaced the need to smoke, increased motivation for cessation and enhanced success; and, finally, a story of forced reduction that highlighted difficulties with smoking cessation for a highly addicted smoker and the tension and conflict this created in his relationship with his partner. Common to all the storylines was the men's reluctance to rely on smoking cessation resources; instead, self-reliance, willpower, and autonomy figured more prominently in their narratives. The findings from this study support developing gender-sensitive tobacco reduction interventions for fathers who smoke.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".