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
BACKGROUND: Modern guidelines for the management of asthma state that asthmatic patients should be strongly advised not to smoke. However, it remains unclear to what extend young people with asthma actually behave like this. This study compares the prevalence of daily smoking between 15-year adolescents with diagnosed asthma and without asthma, and evaluates to what extent risk factors for smoking play a comparable role in the smoking behaviour of these two groups. METHODS: The study is part of the 2001-2002 international HBSC study. Besides questions about health behaviour, individual and social resources, a set of asthma questions were included in six countries. RESULTS: Adolescents with diagnosed asthma are more likely to be daily smokers than non-asthmatic adolescents. In asthmatic and non-asthmatic adolescents, similar associations with risk factors are found for daily smoking (drunkenness, cannabis use, low life satisfaction, spending evenings with friends, having smoking parents and peers). Diagnosed asthmatics are more prone to score high on these factors than non-asthmatics. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking in adolescents with asthma is a public health problem. Smoking prevention efforts directed towards young people should pay attention to young people with asthma and the curative sector should increase their efforts to motivate asthmatic adolescents not to smoke.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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