MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106032233 · doi:10.5993/ajhb.27.1.s2.5

Better Practices for Youth Tobacco Cessation: Evidence of Review Panel

2003· article· en· W2106032233 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Health Behavior · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoking cessationSocial cognitive theoryPsychological interventionYouth smokingIntervention (counseling)CognitionScientific evidenceMedicineEvidence-based practicePsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryAlternative medicinePsychotherapistTobacco controlNursingPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To offer programmers, policy makers, and researchers a scientific basis for developing and selecting smoking cessation treatments for adolescents. METHODS: An evidence review panel systematically rated published and unpublished reports of cessation treatments for youth to make recommendations on theoretical foundations, delivery settings, types of intervention, and provider type. RESULTS: Twenty studies had sufficient validity to inform the recommendations. The 9 studies that reported treatments that increased cessation were based on social cognitive theory. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive-behavioral interventions are a promising approach for helping young smokers quit smoking. Evidence is insufficient to draw other conclusions at this time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it