The relation between number of smoking friends, and quit intentions, attempts, and success: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smokers who inhabit social contexts with a greater number of smokers may be exposed to more positive norms toward smoking and more cues to smoke. This study examines the relation between number of smoking friends and changes in number of smoking friends, and smoking cessation outcomes. Data were drawn from Wave 1 (2002) and Wave 2 (2003) of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Project Four Country Survey, a longitudinal cohort survey of nationally representative samples of adult smokers in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and United States (N = 6,321). Smokers with fewer smoking friends at Wave 1 were more likely to intend to quit at Wave 1 and were more likely to succeed in their attempts to quit at Wave 2. Compared with smokers who experienced no change in their number of smoking friends, smokers who lost smoking friends were more likely to intend to quit at Wave 2, attempt to quit between Wave 1 and Wave 2, and succeed in their quit attempts at Wave 2. Smokers who inhabit social contexts with a greater number of smokers may be less likely to successfully quit. Quitting may be particularly unlikely among smokers who do not experience a loss in the number of smokers in their social context.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it