MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dispelling myths about gender differences in smoking cessation: population data from the USA, Canada and Britain

2012· article· en· W2157400175 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. J. Jarvis, Joanna E Cohen, Cristine D. Delnevo, Gary A. Giovino

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Control · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsOntario Tobacco Research UnitUniversity of Toronto
FundersCancer Research UK
KeywordsSmoking cessationMedicineTobacco controlPsychological interventionDemographyQuit smokingPopulationSmoking prevalenceGerontologyEnvironmental healthPublic healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Based mainly on findings from clinical settings, it has been claimed that women are less likely than men to quit smoking successfully. If true, this would have important implications for tobacco control interventions. The authors aimed to test this possibility using data from general population surveys. METHODS: The authors used data from major national surveys conducted in 2006-2007 in the USA (Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey), Canada (Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey) and the UK (General Household Survey) to estimate rates of smoking cessation by age in men and women. RESULTS: The authors found a pattern of gender differences in smoking cessation which was consistent across countries. Below age 50, women were more likely to have given up smoking completely than men, while among older age groups, men were more likely to have quit than women. Across all age groups, there was relatively little difference in cessation between the sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions about gender differences in smoking cessation should be based on evidence from the general population rather than from atypical clinical samples. This study has found convincing evidence that men in general are not more likely to quit smoking successfully than women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations106
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTobacco ControlSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207