Adverse effects of a social contract smoking prevention program among children in Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a smoke-free class competition in elementary schools in Québec, Canada before widespread dissemination of the program across the province. METHODS: In a quasiexperimental study design, 843 students in 27 schools exposed to "Mission TNT.06" were compared to 1213 students in 57 matched comparison schools. Baseline data were collected in grade 6 prior to implementation of the program. Follow-up data were collected in grade 7 after students had transitioned to secondary school. RESULTS: The program improved knowledge about the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, but had no impact on knowledge about the harmful effects of smoking, attitudes about the acceptability of cigarettes, beliefs about the tobacco industry, or self-efficacy to resist peer pressure to smoke. After exposure to the program, intervention students were more likely to misreport their smoking status and to report unfavourable attitudes about classmates who smoke. CONCLUSION: Mission TNT.06 may encourage young smokers to misreport their smoking status and to marginalise classmates who smoke. These findings prompted recommendations to conduct more in-depth evaluation of the smoke-free class competition before widespread dissemination of the program across the province.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".