MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072320558 · doi:10.1136/tc.12.suppl_4.iv1

Youth tobacco use research in the USA: progress and challenges

2003· article· en· W2072320558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas J. Glynn, S L Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Control · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobacco controlTobacco usePopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)Public healthEnvironmental healthMedicineTobacco industryYouth smokingDemographyGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efforts to control tobacco use and tobacco related morbidity and mortality in the USA have met with reasonable success, at least through the early part of the 1990s. In the 39 years since the publication of the first Surgeon General’s Report on Tobacco and Health, adult smoking rates in the USA have declined by nearly 40%, although only a modest portion of that decline has occurred during the past decade. Nevertheless, less than a quarter of the US population now smokes and other indices of success, such as changing attitudes toward tobacco use in public places, a near universal perception of tobacco use as a health hazard, and support for laws and regulations restricting tobacco use all point to continued progress in tobacco control among the US adult population. Controlling tobacco use among youth, however, has presented a greater challenge in recent years. Although there was considerable progress in reducing adolescent tobacco use between the early 1970s and the mid 1980s, incidence and prevalence of youth smoking began, first, to stabilise in the late 1980s and, then, alarmingly, to climb through a large portion of the 1990s. In fact, in the relatively short period between 1991 and 1997, the percentage of US high school students who were current smokers rose by nearly a third, from 27% to 36%. The research community offered a number of …

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.152 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTobacco ControlSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207