Bullying and Smoking: Examining the Relationships in Ontario Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from the 2003 Ontario Student Drug Use Survey (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto), the relationships between bullying and smoking in adolescents were examined. A representative sample of 3314 grade 7-12 students was included in the analysis. Models were adjusted for confounders identified in the current literature. Multinomial logistic regression showed that current smokers were more likely to be bullies than nonsmokers (relative risk ratio = 2.3, p < .001); being a current smoker was not associated with being a victim or a bully/victim (one who is both a bully and a victim). Moreover, gender was found to modify the effect of smoking on bullying status. Female smokers were more likely to be bullies and bully/victims than nonsmokers while there were no statistically significant differences for males. The associations between bullying status and smoking are consistent with those found in a multinational World Health Organization survey of adolescent health. Findings of the study suggested that girls were at much higher risk for involvement in bullying if they smoked, although girls were less frequently involved in bullying.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".