MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992531542 · doi:10.1375/jsc.2.2.59

Rethinking an Assessment of Nicotine Dependence: A Sex, Gender and Diversity Analysis of the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence

2007· article· en· W1992531542 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay Richardson, Lorraine Greaves, Natasha Jategaonkar, Kirsten Bell, Ann Pederson, Ethel Tungohan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Smoking Cessation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBC Cancer AgencyBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNicotine dependenceDiversity (politics)NicotinePsychologyTest (biology)Gender diversityClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologySociologyPsychiatryAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article assesses whether the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND), adequately reflects sex, gender and diversity related differences in nicotine dependence. Available studies on the FTND were reviewed and a sex, gender and diversity analysis (SGBA) of this instrument was conducted. Results indicate that sex and gender differences in nicotine dependence may undermine the ability of the FTND to present an adequate picture of dependence. Conducting a SGBA on this Fagerstrom test reveals that sex and gender differences likely limit the ability of this instrument to present an accurate picture of dependence in diverse groups. Further research is needed to enhance the sensitivity of the FTND.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Smoking CessationSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207