The Influence of Family Factors on Smoking Behavior in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The goal of this study is to specify the risks, family and environmental factors affecting smoking behavior and develop suggestions for Turkish individuals by considering sibling data. Materials and Methods: The data was collected by voluntary senior year students attending Kırıkkale University, Department of Statistics. The sample of 751 families was selected from families with at least two children. Each sibling’s socio-demographic information and behavioral phenotypes were collected using a survey from both siblings. We selected one of siblings randomly as ‘sibling1’ and defined the other sibling as ‘sibling2’. Hypothesis testing and multivariable clustered logistic regression models were used to evaluate the data and find the optimum model by using dependent sibling data. Results: Out of 1502 (751 pairs) siblings 843 (56.1%) were males, 659 (43.9%) were females. According to the survey results, 508 of the males (67.7%) and 242 of the females (32.3%) were smokers for a month or longer and smoked every day. The risk of smoking was 2.26 times higher in males than in females. Having a smoking sibling increased the risk of smoking 1.95 times, alcohol using increased the risk 2.11 times. We found that when the age difference between siblings is 0-7 years, having a same sex sibling who smokes increases one’s risk 4.7 times in females and 5 times in males; when the siblings are of different sexes, according to these age differences Conclusion: The survey showed that the gender and sibling’s and parent’s smoking both play a significant role on smoking behavior. But children seem to learn smoking from their siblings more than from parents. Having same sex sibling who smokes plays significant role in smoking behavior for both males and females.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".