Tobacco Use, Women, Gender, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Are the Connections Being Adequately Made?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reflects on a multidisciplinary workshop addressing the evidence pertaining to tobacco use, sex, gender, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In preparation, a literature review was conducted that examined the academic and gray literature on tobacco, COPD, and gender and women, with a view to assessing if and how these literatures spoke to each other. These materials were discussed in a sponsored workshop (Toward a Research Agenda on Gender and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) held in Vancouver, Canada, in 2007, engaging a variety of scientists and stakeholders in assessing the issues and emergent questions. The goal of this workshop was to foster the advancement of a research agenda that more tightly links tobacco, COPD, and lung health and that reflects and investigates sex and gender issues, especially in reference to the growing rates of COPD among women. A research agenda for consideration by researchers in the fields of women's health, medicine, tobacco use, COPD, and related fields is offered.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".