MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Narratives of smoking relapse: The stories of postpartum women

2000· article· en· W2126379933 on OpenAlexaff
Joan L. Bottorff, Joy L. Johnson, Lori G. Irwin, Pamela A. Ratner

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Nursing & Health · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingNarrativeSmoking cessationPregnancyMedicineIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPostpartum periodRelapse preventionPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many women who stop smoking during pregnancy relapse soon after the birth of their infants. Using narrative research, experiences of smoking relapse were explored using interviews with 27 postpartum women. The stories of relapse were analyzed to identify important components, paying attention to commonalities, differences, and areas of emphasis. Five general story lines were identified: (1) controlling one's smoking (starting with a "puff" and consciously restricting the amount smoked); (2) being vulnerable to smoking(relapsing because of an inability to resist cigarettes); (3) nostalgia for one's former self(relapsing to recapture feelings of freedom and happier times); (4) smoking for relief(relapsing to manage emotions and stress); and (5) never really having quit (relapsing because they did not quit for themselves). The findings of this study provide support for the claim that the experiences of smoking cessation and relapse among postpartum women may be unique and, consequently, may require specialized intervention.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations98
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Nursing & HealthSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207