Cigarette brand preference as a function of price among smoking youths in Canada: are they smoking premium, discount or native brands?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Given that little is known about the price-related cigarette brand preferences of youths, the current study seeks to characterise cigarette brand preferences and examine factors associated with smoking discount or native cigarette brands among Canadian youths who are current smokers. METHODS: This study used nationally representative data collected from 71,003 grade 5-12 students as part of the 2006-7 Canadian Youth Smoking Survey (YSS). Using data from current smokers, logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with smoking discount or native cigarette brands relative to premium cigarette brands. RESULTS: In 2006, premium cigarettes were the most prevalent brand of cigarette youths report usually smoking (49.4%); a substantial number of youths do report usually smoking either discount (12.9%) or native (9.3%) cigarette brands. Occasional smokers were more likely to report usually smoking premium cigarettes whereas daily smokers were more likely to report smoking either discount or native cigarettes. In particular, discount and native brands appear to be appealing among smoking youths with less spending money or those who are heavier smokers compared to youths smoking premium brands. CONCLUSION: Discount and native cigarette brands are commonly used by a substantial number of smoking youths in Canada. Additional research is required to better understand the reasons behind different cigarette brand preferences and how youths are able to access premium, discount and illicit native cigarettes. Moreover, ongoing surveillance of the cigarette brand preferences of youths is required for guiding future tobacco control policy and programming activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".