MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051252072 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v63i0.17945

Tobacco smoking status among Aboriginal youth

2004· article· en· W2051252072 on OpenAlexaffabout
A Ritchie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousLogistic regressionTobacco controlInclusion (mineral)Youth smokingTobacco useGerontologyEnvironmental healthSmoking prevalenceDemographyPsychologyMedicinePublic healthSocial psychologyPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine what factors are associated with the smoking status among some of the spectators and participants of the 2002 North American Indigenous Games. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: A survey inquiring about tobacco use and lifestyle behaviours was implemented at the North American Indigenous Games in Winnipeg, Canada. This survey, entitled the 2002 Aboriginal Youth Lifestyle Survey, included Aboriginal youth between the ages 12 to 22 years old. RESULTS: There were 570 survey participants (53.5% female) that met the inclusion criteria. It was determined that smoking initiation began earlier than what is reported in the literature and did not occur beyond age 18. The logistic regression analysis revealed that the variables age,peer smokings, self-rated health, and participation status at the NAIG, were associated with smoking status in this sample. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that Aboriginal youth require different tobacco control strategies compared to non-Aboriginal youth. While these youth experience similar risk factors associated with smoking status, based on the earlier initiation age, tobacco prevention needs to commence much earlier. This study also showcases the positive role that involvement in physical activity plays in building resiliency among Aboriginal youth.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207