MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Women and tobacco: a call for including gender in tobacco control research, policy and practice

2011· review· en· W2145034529 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Control · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UKUnited Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration
KeywordsTobacco controlContext (archaeology)Tobacco industryDisadvantagedCultivation of tobaccoEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceMedicineEconomic growthPublic healthGeographyEconomicsAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Female smoking is predicted to double between 2005 and 2025. There have been numerous calls for action on women's tobacco use over the past two decades. In the present work, evidence about female tobacco use, progress, challenges and ways forward for developing gendered tobacco control is reviewed. METHODS: Literature on girls, women and tobacco was reviewed to identify trends and determinants of tobacco use and exposure, the application of gender analysis, tobacco marketing, the impact of tobacco control on girls and women and ways to address these issues particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. RESULTS: Global female tobacco use is increasingly complex, involving diverse products and factors including tobacco marketing, globalisation and changes in women's status. In high-income countries female smoking is declining but is increasingly concentrated among disadvantaged women. In low-income and middle-income countries the pattern is more complex; in several regions the gap between girls' and boys' smoking is narrow. Gendered analyses and approaches to tobacco control are uncommon, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco control has remained largely gender blind, with little recognition of the importance of understanding the context and challenges of girl's and women's smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. There has been little integration of gender considerations in research, policy and programmes. The present work makes a case for gender and diversity analyses in tobacco control to reflect and identify intersecting factors affecting women's tobacco use. This will help animate the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control's concern for gender specificity and women's leadership, and reduce the impact of tobacco on women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.192 · 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