MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021258158 · doi:10.1136/adc.2006.109702

"Blowing in the wind": a review of teenage smoking

2007· review· en· W2021258158 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Warren Lenney, Beth Enderby

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeer pressureHabitGovernment (linguistics)LegislationQuarter (Canadian coin)SmokeEnvironmental healthPediatricsSocial psychologyPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One quarter of all adults in the UK are regular smokers, the vast majority having started smoking in their teens. Teenage smoking, especially in females, continues to increase both as regards the numbers of cigarettes smoked and the numbers of teenagers who regularly smoke. The main factors influencing teenagers to smoke are peer pressure, family members who smoke and experimentation. Nicotine dependence can develop very quickly and in the UK little attention has been directed towards helping teenagers break the habit. In global terms the figures are frightening. Of the 1.25 billion smokers, 800 million live in developing countries. In the UK, government legislation, restrictions on advertising and educational programmes may improve the situation in the near future but there is still little recognition that smoking is responsible for 4 million deaths each year worldwide and insufficient attention has been paid to children and young families to try to prevent children and teenagers from smoking in the first place.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207