Native, Discount, or Premium Brand Cigarettes: What Types of Cigarettes Are Canadian Youth Currently Smoking?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to determine the brand distribution of premium, discount, and native cigarette brands and to identify the factors associated with smoking these brands among a nationally representative sample of Canadian youth smokers. METHODS: Data from 3,137 current smokers in Grades 9-12 participating in the 2008-2009 Youth Smoking Survey (YSS) were used to examine the prevalence and factors associated with different cigarette brand preferences. RESULTS: The most prevalent brand of cigarette smoked was premium cigarettes (44.7%), followed by discount cigarettes (33.7%), and to be native cigarettes (7.3%). There was significant variability in brand preference by province with the majority of youth in Atlantic Canada and Quebec smoking a discount brand of cigarettes and higher prevalence rates of native cigarette use in Ontario and Quebec. Respondents were more likely to smoke discount cigarettes if they were female, daily smokers, or if they only had $1-20 a week in spending money. Respondents were more likely to smoke native cigarettes if they were Aboriginal, heavier smokers, or if they reported having no weekly spending money. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of students from Grade 9 to 12 in Canada smoke cigarettes that are more affordable than premium brands and it appears that the market share for these more affordable cigarette options has increased in recent years. Given that the price of cigarettes is an important determinant in youth smoking behavior, it is critical to develop and continue to enforce tobacco control strategies designed to eliminate access to cheaper sources of cigarettes among youth populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".