Sustained Waterpipe Use Among Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Waterpipe smoking is increasingly popular among North American youth. However, the extent to which waterpipe use is sustained over time is not known. The objective of this study was to describe the frequency and the predictors of sustained waterpipe use over 4 years among young adults. METHODS: Data were available in a prospective cohort investigation of 1,293 seventh-grade students recruited in a convenience sample of 10 secondary schools in Montreal, Canada, in 1999. Data on past-year waterpipe use were collected from 777 participants when they were age 20 years on average (in 2007-2008) and again when they were age 24 years (in 2011-2012) in mailed self-report questionnaires. Twenty potential predictors of sustained waterpipe use were tested, each in a separate multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: About 51% of 182 waterpipe users at age 20 reported waterpipe use 4 years later. Most sustained users (88%) smoked a waterpipe less than once a month. Parental smoking, being currently employed, less frequent cigarette smoking, and more frequent marijuana use were associated with sustained waterpipe use. CONCLUSIONS: Half of the young adults who used waterpipe during young adulthood reported use 4 years later. Young adults who sustain waterpipe use appear to do so as an activity undertaken occasionally to socialize with others.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".