Understanding Nonsmoking in African American and Caucasian College Students: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have considered whether psychological determinants of nonsmoking among college students vary by ethnicity. The authors tested the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to explain differences in nonsmoking intentions of 238 African American and 197 Caucasian college students who completed an in-class TPB questionnaire and a smoking assessment 1 week later. After removing 35 students who reported smoking at the baseline assessment, regressions were used to examine ethnic effects on TPB constructs when predicting nonsmoking intentions. Caucasians had statistically significant higher nonsmoking intentions than African Americans. Further, subjective norms for Caucasians and attitudes for African Americans had small but significant relations to intention, but perceived behavioral control (PBC) was a strongly significant predictor for both ethnic groups. However, the prediction of nonsmoking intentions was not statistically moderated by ethnicity for any of the TPB constructs. This study suggests that the TPB may aid in understanding collegiate nonsmoking intentions and help begin to explain differences in smoking on the basis of ethnicity. Last, because of strong associations shown in this study, PBC should be considered when developing ethnic-specific smoking interventions in college students.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it