Early determinants of smoking in adolescence: a prospective birth cohort study
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
In a prospective birth cohort study in Brazil, the prevalence and early risk factors for smoking in adolescence were investigated. All 1982 hospital-born children in Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, were enrolled in a birth cohort study (N = 5,914; boys: 3,037; girls: 2,877). All male participants were searched in 2000 when enrolling in the national army, and 78.8% were traced. In 2001, a systematic sample of 473 girls was interviewed, representing a follow-up rate of 69.1%. Among males, 48.6% (95%CI: 46.6-50.7) had ever tried smoking and 15.8% (95%CI: 14.3-17.3) were daily smokers. Among females, 53.1% (95%CI: 48.6-57.6) had ever tried smoking and 15.4% (95%CI: 12.1-18.7) were daily smokers. Boys born to single mothers and those with fathers with low schooling were more likely to smoke in adolescence. Girls from low-income families, with mothers who smoked during pregnancy, and fathers with alcohol-related problems were more likely to smoke. Although the smoking prevalence was similar in boys and girls, risk factors for smoking were different between the sexes. Social environment appears to be the strongest predictor of tobacco use in adolescence.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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