Qualitative investigation of young smokers' and ex-smokers' views on smoking cessation methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis reported in this paper was conducted to further explore initially negative findings of a study intended to help orient the development, implementation, and evaluation of smoking cessation programs for junior college students. A total of 69 students (39 males and 30 females) participated in nine focus group discussions held at one French-speaking and one English-speaking college in central Montreal. Three groups consisted of ex-smokers, and the remainder were current smokers. Group participants were asked to react to a series of proposed smoking cessation interventions identified from the literature. Qualitative analysis was undertaken of verbatim transcriptions of five of the focus group discussions, with input from the four others. Second-level analysis of the focus group data suggested that the students' reactions to proposed smoking cessation interventions could be understood using Eriksonian developmental theory, in particular how the cessation programs could contribute to the process of consolidating personal and social identity. Implications for the design of cessation programs were then identified. The results of these exploratory analyses suggested that to attract and maintain participation of college students, smoking cessation interventions should not necessarily be centered on smoking but rather (a) provide opportunities and support for exploration of, and commitment to, personal and social identities that exclude smoking, (b) target naturally occurring social groups while responding to students' needs for social support and validation, and (c) help students cope with stress and life demands and not add to these.
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 | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".