Waterpipe (Hookah) Smoking Among Youth and Women in Canada is New, not Traditional: Table 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: When asserting the right of individuals to be free to smoke a hookah (waterpipe [WP]) in public places, the "cultural" importance of the practice is often cited. The purpose of this study was to explore the cultural significance of WP smoking. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used to elicit the views of groups of WP smokers from different cultural backgrounds. RESULTS: Sixteen group discussion sessions with a total of 75 WP smokers aged between 18 and 30 were conducted. A few participants saw culture as a factor supporting WP smoking initiation and maintenance. The vast majority indicated that WPs being perceived as "healthier" than cigarettes, and the availability of flavored shisha as important factors in their initiation and ongoing use. Most started smoking before the age of 18 calling it a "high school thing" and admitted that they had easy access to WP cafés. Many indicated that they did not know if they were smoking tobacco or a "herbal" substance. CONCLUSION: Peer influence, availability of flavored products and facile access to WP cafés are major factors in WP initiation. Ethno-cultural traditions play only a minor role. The assertion that cultural traditions and practice are inherent in WP smoking as implied by media and marketing was not supported by our findings. Contemporary use of WP is spreading among new non-traditional users. Lack of knowledge about the harms of WP smoking indicates a need for education and regulation to require packaging and health warning labels and restrictions on access, especially to minors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".