Smoking cessation was difficult for adolescents because of daily life stressors and the need for major lifestyle changesCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C S Fryer Correspondence to: Dr C S Fryer, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; cfryer@cmh.pitt.edu What are the beliefs and experiences of adolescents related to quitting smoking? Grounded theory. 3 high schools in New York City and 6 community-based organisations. 54 adolescents 16–18 years of age (63% men) who had smoked >100 cigarettes in their lifetime and had attempted to quit smoking at least once. 46 adolescents participated in individual interviews (45–60 min), and 31 participated in focus group sessions (60–75 min). Interviews and focus groups addressed different aspects of quitting smoking, including what quitting meant, history of smoking and quit attempts, self-identification as smokers or ex-smokers, reasons to quit, strategies for resisting urges to smoke, influences affecting quitting, and quit methods. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, coded using an inductive approach, and analysed for themes using grounded theory. Focus groups comprised 4–7 participants per group and were audiotaped (6 groups) and videotaped (3 groups). Beliefs about …
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".