MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114664174 · doi:10.1080/10810730701854029

The 2005 British Columbia Smoking Cessation Mass Media Campaign and Short-term Changes in Smokers Attitudes

2008· article· en· W2114664174 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lynda Gagné

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Communication · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMass mediaSmoking cessationMedicineRecallQuit smokingPerceptionCoping (psychology)Environmental healthAdverse effectDemographyPsychologyAdvertisingClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of the 2005 British Columbia (BC) smoking cessation mass media campaign on a panel (N = 1,341) of 20-30-year-old smokers' attitudes is evaluated. The 5-week campaign consisted of posters, television, and radio ads about the health benefits of cessation. Small impacts on the panel's attitudes toward the adverse impacts of smoking were found, with greater impacts found for those who had no plans to quit smoking at the initial interview. As smokers with no plans to quit increasingly recognized the adverse impacts of smoking, they also increasingly agreed that they use smoking as a coping mechanism. Smokers with plans to quit at the initial interview already were well aware of smoking's adverse impacts. Respondents recalling the campaign poster, which presented a healthy alternative to smoking, decreased their perception of smoking as a coping mechanism and devalued their attachment to smoking. Evidence was found that media ad recall mediates unobserved predictors of attitudes toward 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health CommunicationSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207