The impact of school smoking policies and student perceptions of enforcement on school smoking prevalence and location of smoking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess the impact of school tobacco policy intention, implementation and students' perceptions of policy enforcement on smoking rates and location of tobacco use during the school day. Data were obtained from all students in Grades 10-11 (n = 22,318) in 81 randomly selected schools from five Canadian provinces. Policy intention was assessed by coding written school tobacco policies. School administrators most familiar with the tobacco policy completed a survey to assess policy implementation. Results revealed policy intention and implementation subscales did not significantly predict school smoking prevalence but resulted in moderate prediction of tobacco use on school property (R(2) = 0.21-0.27). Students' perceptions of policy enforcement significantly predicted school smoking prevalence (R(2) = 0.36) and location of tobacco use (R(2) = 0.23-0.63). The research findings emphasize: (i) the need to consider both written policy intention and actual policy implementation and (ii) the existence of a policy is not effective in controlling tobacco use unless the policy is implemented and is perceived to be strongly enforced.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".