The impact of reduced ignition propensity cigarette regulation on smoking behaviour in a cohort of Ontario smokers: Figure 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the degree to which legislation intended to reduce the incidence of cigarette-caused fires influenced the behaviours of a cohort of smokers in Ontario. A random digit dialled telephone survey of adult smokers residing in Ontario was conducted in 2005, ending 1 month prior to the reduced ignition propensity (RIP) regulation's implementation date. A follow-up survey was conducted one year later. Of the baseline participants, 73.0% (n=435) completed the follow-up survey. The frequency of fire risk behaviours was similar across both surveys. At baseline, only 3.7% of smokers interviewed reported that their cigarettes went out on their own 'often' while smoking. Following the implementation of the reduced ignition propensity legislation, this increased significantly to 14.7%. Results suggest that the proportion of Ontario smokers who reported engaging in behaviour such as leaving a cigarette burning unattended and smoking in bed actually declined, although these declines were not statistically significant across all measures of fire risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".