MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Late adolescent female smoking

2000· article· en· W2011086565 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marilyn Seguire, Karen Chalmers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionQualitative researchPsychologyNicotinePromotion (chess)Youth smokingQuit smokingMedicinePublic healthDevelopmental psychologySmoking cessationPsychiatryTobacco controlNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there have been intense efforts to reduce the prevalence of cigarette smoking in the past three decades, smoking continues to be a critical public health problem. An area of particular concern is the increasing number of young women who are smoking. Gender specific research usually does not examine factors affecting smoking behaviours. Information on late adolescent female smoking is not readily found in the literature. The aims of this study were to explore the smoking patterns and processes of late adolescent females and to explore factors which may or may not be helpful in assisting them to stop smoking. A qualitative ethnographic approach was used to uncover the perceptions of 25 adolescent girls of their behaviour. Data were collected using tape-recorded semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire. Items for the questionnaire were derived from the Manitoba Youth Smoking Survey and from the Fagerstrorn Nicotine Tolerance Scale. Qualitative analysis resulted in four stories about smoking: the start story, the smoking story, the quit story, and the looking to the future story. Although many of the findings are congruent with the existing literature, much of the data reflected the purposive nature of smoking in late adolescent girls. Study findings support the need for holistic approaches to health promotion to ameliorate factors affecting smoking behaviour.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations43
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207