The role of spending money and drinking alcohol in adolescent smoking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Previous studies have shown inconsistent findings with regard to the association between amount of spending money and adolescent smoking. Drinking alcohol may be a mediator of the association between spending money and adolescent smoking. However, no studies have examined this potential role. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between amount of spending money and adolescent smoking and the potential mediation role of alcohol use in this association. DESIGN: The 2003 Ontario Student Drug Use Survey of students in grades 7-12. MEASUREMENTS: Multivariable logistic, probit and linear regression models were used to investigate the association between amount of spending money and smoking, and the contribution of drinking alcoholic beverages to this relationship. FINDINGS: Spending money was associated positively with experimental smoking, current smoking and daily consumption of cigarettes (P < 0.01). The analysis adjusted for confounders showed that students with spending money > or =$20/week were significantly more likely to be experimental smokers, students with > or =$30/week were significantly more likely to be current smokers and students with > or =$60/week smoked significantly more cigarettes/day (P < or = 0.05), compared to students with <$10/week. Alcohol use was an important mediator, responsible for 81% of the association of spending money with experimental smoking, 38% with current smoking and 37% with daily consumption of cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Amount of spending money was associated significantly and positively with smoking among adolescents, and alcohol use mediated this association. Integrated tobacco prevention programs may be more effective, and increasing taxes on cigarettes and alcohol would increase price sensitivity among youth and protect against adolescent smoking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".