Ethno‐specific patterns of adolescent tobacco use and the mediating role of acculturation, peer smoking, and sibling smoking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The objectives of this study are to identify the relationship between ethnic identity and tobacco use, and to examine the mediating effects of peer and sibling smoking and acculturation. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: Data were drawn from a cross-sectional survey of 3400 Toronto students, sampled from 30 schools between 1998 and 2000. Primary ethnic identity was based on adolescents' self-identification of their ethnic heritage condensed to 12 groups for analysis. Tobacco use was measured as a dichotomy, predicting non-smoking in the past year. Multivariate logistic regression models were employed to test for baseline differences in non-smoking by ethnic identity. Subsequent models adjusted for controls (age, gender, social class, religious attendance, educational achievement) and introduced mediators. FINDINGS: Results indicated that smoking varied among adolescents of differing ethnic identities. Adolescents of western European, eastern European and southern European ethnicity were considerably less likely to be non-smokers, while Chinese, South Asian and East Indian and West Indian youth were more inclined to be non-smokers. The discrepancies in rates of non-smoking among western European and South Asian and East Indian adolescents were explained by a combination of peer and sibling smoking and acculturation; among southern European and eastern European youth via peer and sibling smoking; and by neither peer and sibling smoking nor acculturation for Chinese and West Indian youth. CONCLUSIONS: This paper demonstrates that disparities in tobacco use among certain ethnic groups can be explained by peer and sibling smoking and acculturation; however, for other ethnic groups, knowledge of the processes that account for differences in tobacco use remains less clear.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".