Comparing gain- and loss-framed messages for smoking cessation with sustained-release bupropion: A randomized controlled trial.
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
Prospect theory suggests that because smoking cessation is a prevention behavior with a fairly certain outcome, gain-framed messages will be more persuasive than loss-framed messages when attempting to encourage smoking cessation. To test this hypothesis, the authors randomly assigned participants (N=258) in a clinical trial to either a gain- or loss-framed condition, in which they received factually equivalent video and printed messages encouraging smoking cessation that emphasized either the benefits of quitting (gains) or the costs of continuing to smoke (losses), respectively. All participants received open label sustained-release bupropion (300 mg/day) for 7 weeks. In the intent-to-treat analysis, the difference between the experimental groups by either point prevalence or continuous abstinence was not statistically significant. Among 170 treatment completers, however, a significantly higher proportion of participants were continuously abstinent in the gain-framed condition as compared with the loss-framed condition. These data suggest that gain-framed messages may be more persuasive than loss-framed messages in promoting early success in smoking cessation for participants who are engaged in treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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