MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061101248 · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.7.1076

SMOKING AND FIRE

2004· letter· en· W2061101248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marty Ahrens

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnvironmental healthDemographyQuarter (Canadian coin)PovertyGeographyLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thank you for printing the outstanding collection of articles about tobacco and health disparities in the February 2004 issue of the Journal. Although most of tobacco’s deleterious health effects are long-term, smoking materials remain the leading cause of fatal fires in the United States, causing roughly one quarter of home fire deaths. One study compared the demographic characteristics of smokers whose cigarettes had started a fire with those of smokers who had not had a fire. Households with incomes of less than $10 000 accounted for 45.6% of smokers who had had fires and only 16.6% of smokers who had not. Smokers who were not high school graduates accounted for 38.3% of smokers who had had fires and only 18.4% of those who had not.1 Not surprisingly, states with larger percentages of adults lacking high school diplomas and households below the poverty level tend to have higher fire death rates.2 Barbeau et al. showed that these factors are also correlated with smoking.3 Smoking bans protect health, but they also protect property. Fee and Brown described the positive effect that hospital smoking bans had on the hospital environment and the smoking behavior of hospital employees.4 Hospital fires started by smoking materials fell by 96%, from 3200 in 1980 to 130 in 1998. In 1980, these fires accounted for 40% of hospital fires. In 1998, the figure was only 8% (Ahrens M, unpublished data, 2004). I had to do a mental shift when reading Fairchild and Colgrove’s article on the “safer” cigarette.5 The fire safety community is strenuously advocating legislative requirements for self-extinguishing cigarettes. While such cigarettes would not eliminate all cigarette fires, they would substantially reduce the number of fires caused by smoldering cigarettes. The National Fire Protection Association is in the harm reduction camp. Until smokers quit, we want them to use a product with reduced risk. Because quitting often takes numerous attempts, we advocate cigarettes that are less prone to ignition, products that are less flammable, and education about smoking practices that are less likely to start fires. Difficult questions arise when someone receiving supplemental medical oxygen continues to smoke. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations discussed the root causes of 11 fires involving home medical oxygen in the article “Lessons Learned: Fires in the Home Care Setting.”6 Many caregivers, agencies, and fire departments are struggling with this issue. Smoking is a significant part of the fire and injury problem. Preventing smoking will prevent fire deaths. We applaud the efforts taken to identify the most effective strategies and hope that Journal readers will consider including fire prevention in their programs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207