What Are the Odds? Community Readiness for Smoke-Free Bingos in First Nation Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community members have identified second-hand smoke exposure among young women and children within First Nations communities as a concern. As part of a community-based research project, we analyzed experiences related to establishing smoke-free public spaces and the challenges related to smoking and bingo. The purpose of this study was to a) describe and compare community smoking at bingo in First Nations communities, and b) draw implications for assessing and supporting community readiness for comprehensive tobacco control policies (TCPs). Data were collected using individual interviews, group discussions, and observations in the community. The establishment of smoke-free public spaces in communities evolved out of concern by people traditionally responsible for the well-being of the community. Despite close proximity and similar socioeconomic contexts, readiness to extend these successes to bingos held in community halls was influenced by three main factors: a) economic drivers, b) the smoking majority, and c) grassroots support. Although models for assessing community readiness provide a useful starting point for understanding local TCP development and implementation in First Nations communities, other factors also need to be considered. Using a comprehensive approach to assessing community readiness has the potential to increase success in extending TCPs and practices in First Nations communities in ways that are culturally relevant, address local conditions, and build on existing efforts.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".