Does Intolerance of Smoking at School or in Restaurants or Corner Stores Decrease Cigarette Use Initiation in Adolescents?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In addition to individual-level characteristics, the social and physical environment may influence the initiation of cigarette smoking in adolescents. The objective of this paper is to describe the association between smoking intolerance in schools, and in restaurants and corner stores located near schools, and initiation of cigarette smoking among adolescents. METHODS: Data on cigarette smoking were collected in self-report questionnaires every 3 months from 1999 to 2005 in a sample of 1,293 Grade 7 students in 10 secondary schools in Montreal, Canada. Baseline never-smokers (n = 868) were retained for analysis. School administrators completed questionnaires on tobacco control policies and activities within schools. Data on access to tobacco products and smoking restrictions in restaurants and corner stores located in school neighborhoods were collected through direct observation. Schools, restaurants, and corner stores were classified as smoking tolerant or intolerant. Time to initiation of cigarette smoking was modeled as a function of smoking intolerance in schools, restaurants, and corner stores in survival analyses (Cox proportional hazards modeling). RESULTS: Students in smoking-intolerant schools were less likely to initiate smoking than students in smoking-tolerant schools (hazard ratio [HR; 95% CI] = 0.83 [0.68, 1.01]). Students attending schools located in neighborhoods with smoking-intolerant restaurants were less likely to initiate smoking (HR [95% CI] = 0.85 [0.68, 1.07]). There was no association between corner store smoking intolerance and initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking intolerance in schools and restaurants may protect against initiation of cigarette smoking and could be useful targets for more intense tobacco control efforts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".