Functional beliefs about smoking and quitting activity among adult smokers in four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychometric properties, distributions, and predictive utility for quitting behavior of six functional beliefs about smoking among adult smokers. DESIGN: Data was from the first three waves of the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey (ITC-4), a random-digit dialed telephone survey of a cohort of over 8,000 adult current smokers from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and Australia followed up annually. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quitting attempts and the success of such attempts at the next wave. RESULTS: The six functional belief measures are modestly correlated with each other and are moderately stable over time. Smoking for enjoyment and life enhancement were significantly negatively related to quitting attempts, at least partly mediated by quitting intention and dependence. Smoking for stress management appeared to reduce quit success among those who tried, an effect mediated by quitting self-efficacy and dependence. Smoking for weight control, social facilitation, and as an aid to concentration were not independently associated with cessation. CONCLUSION: Positive reasons for smoking may discourage quitting, but stress management is the only function that appears to prospectively predict quit success. Interventions should target those beliefs, and review the value of intervening on beliefs that are unrelated to cessation outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".