Tobacco Use in Intimate Spaces: Issues in the Study of Couple Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few guidelines exist for using qualitative research to examine couple dynamics in contexts complicated by strong social stigmas and wide-ranging patterns of interpersonal relationships. The purpose of this article is to describe the methodological and ethical issues that arose in an ongoing qualitative study focused on tobacco reduction in the context of couple relationships, and the strategies undertaken to deal with these challenges. The authors discuss their experiences with the following: recruitment in the context of social stigma and the potential for intracouple coercion, data collection and the implications of uncovering intimate dimensions of couples' lives, the impact of the research process on mothers' vulnerability, and the challenges of capturing shared, "dyad" experiences. These issues point to unique challenges in conducting qualitative research with couples and families and provide a useful base for similar studies.
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 | 0.204 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".