Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: To report on the prevalence of attitudes and beliefs about the importance of wanting to quit and need for use of cessation assistance, that may act as barriers to quitting smoking and adopting cessation assistance. DESIGN AND METHODS: National telephone survey of 802 randomly selected adults (685 smokers, 117 recent quitters). RESULTS: Seventy per cent of smokers believed that 'wanting to quit' was both a necessary and sufficient condition for being able to quit. While only one-third of smokers believed that they were too addicted to be able to quit, only a quarter believed they could quit any time they want to. Belief that use of cessation assistance is a sign of weakness was endorsed by 35% of participants, and related to stage of change. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Beliefs about the importance of wanting to quit are commonly held. Many smokers appear to believe that a rational, unambivalent desire to quit is needed before it is worthwhile trying. Short-term impulses to act are not perceived as sufficient. The role of cessation assistance in helping smokers form a rational desire to quit appears to be poorly understood by the majority of smokers. There is a need to engender greater understanding of the potential value of cessation aids to smokers experiencing ambivalence about wanting to quit.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".