CIGARETTE SMOKING AND THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF ADOLESCENT GIRLS: A DISCOURSE OF RESISTANCE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The consequences of smoking for women are of particular concern in light of recent observations that more adolescent females than males are taking up smoking. To date, few studies have explored gender differences in depth, but we do know that males and females smoke for different reasons and that current smoking prevention programs may be differentially effective depending on gender. Recent evidence suggests that the school environment may have an important influence on smoking. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to explore gender differences in the relationships between cigarette smoking and adolescents' experiences of school climate and their relationships with the school and significant adults in their lives. A secondary data analysis was done using a data set derived from a student survey conducted in 20 secondary schools in British Columbia (BC), Canada, which included 8,179 students in grades 8 to 12. Analyses were primarily descriptive. The results demonstrated that adolescent girls who smoke are more likely than either males or nonsmoking females to experience powerlessness in their school environment and to feel considerably less attachment to the school. Female smokers are more likely than males or female nonsmokers to be engaged in oppositional, distanced, and unsatisfactory relationships with important adults in their lives, particularly those who are in positions of relative power and authority. These findings are discussed in relation to critical and feminist perspectives that suggest smoking is part of a larger discourse of resistance within schools. The implications for health practitioners are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".