Adolescents struggled to maintain a sense of control over their cigarette smoking through a 4 phase cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Johnson JL, Kalaw C, Lovato CY, et al . Crossing the line: adolescents’ experiences of controlling their tobacco use. Qual Health Res 2004;14:1276–91.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What is the process by which adolescents who smoke come to understand that their smoking is a problem and subsequently limit tobacco use by cutting down or quitting altogether? Qualitative study using grounded theory. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 35 adolescents (mean age 16 y, 51% girls) with varied smoking experiences contributed to the initial dataset that examined youth transitions from experimental to regular smoking. The initial dataset was supplemented by follow up interviews with 12 (mean age 18 y, 75% boys) of the original 35 participants and subsequently reanalysed for this study. An additional 11 adolescents (mean age 16 y, 66% girls) participated in the validation process. The study began as a secondary analysis of 35 interviews with adolescents with varied experiences of smoking. 1 year later, follow up interviews were done with 12 original participants. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Participants’ experiences with “stopping” and “quitting” smoking were examined using grounded theory. Emerging themes were validated in 3 interviews and 2 focus groups with 11 additional adolescents. Participants struggled to maintain a sense of control in relation … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DQualitative%2BHealth%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DQual%2BHealth%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DJohnson%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BL.%26rft.volume%253D14%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D1276%26rft.epage%253D1291%26rft.atitle%253DCrossing%2Bthe%2BLine%253A%2BAdolescents%2527%2BExperiences%2Bof%2BControlling%2BTheir%2BTobacco%2BUse%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1177%252F1049732304269157%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15448300%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/1049732304269157&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15448300&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F3%2F92.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224375700008&link_type=ISI
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".