Tobacco control and the inequitable socio-economic distribution of smoking: smokers’ discourses and implications for tobacco control
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
Warning: this article contains strong language. This paper focuses on the ways in which social context structures smokers’ views of, and reactions to, tobacco control. This exploratory study examined the interactions between tobacco control and smokers’ social contexts and how this may be contributing to inequalities in smoking. We found in our sample that higher socio-economic status (SES) smokers are more likely to positively respond and adapt to tobacco control messages and policies, viewing them for their future health betterment. Lower SES smokers in our study, on the other hand, are in conflict with tobacco control and feel intransigent with regard to the effects that tobacco control is having on their smoking. A better understanding of how social context structures people's perceptions of tobacco control may help us to understand why social inequalities in smoking are deepening, and potentially what can be done better in tobacco control to decrease them.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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