MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039883390 · doi:10.1177/1099800407300852

Measuring Tobacco Smoke Exposure Among Smoking and Nonsmoking Bar and Restaurant Workers

2007· article· en· W2039883390 on OpenAlexaff
Chizimuzo T.C. Okoli, Lynne A. Hall, Mary Kay Rayens, Ellen J. Hahn

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Research For Nursing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionUniversity of Kentucky
KeywordsNicotineMedicineTobacco smokeEnvironmental healthBiomarkerSecondhand smokeSmokeOccupational exposureCotinineToxicologyInternal medicineWaste managementChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study assesses the validity of hair nicotine as a biomarker for secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure. Although most biomarkers of tobacco-smoke exposure have a relatively short half-life, hair nicotine can measure several months of cumulative SHS exposure. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of hospitality-industry workers. METHOD: Hair samples were obtained from 207 bar and restaurant workers and analyzed by the reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection (HPLC-ECD) method. Self-reported tobacco use and sources of SHS exposure were assessed. FINDINGS: Higher hair-nicotine levels were associated with more cigarettes smoked per day among smokers and a greater number of SHS-exposure sources among nonsmokers. Number of SHS exposure sources, gender, number of cigarettes smoked per day, and type of establishment predicted hair-nicotine levels. DISCUSSION: Hair nicotine is a valid measure of SHS exposure. It may be used as an alternative biomarker to measure longer term SHS exposure.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.301
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.134 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Research For NursingSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207