Does Household Structure Affect Adolescent Smoking?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine household structure when studying determinants of youth smoking, as the configuration of a family is an important factor in the etiology of adolescent problem behaviors. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: The study sample (n = 13,001) included respondents aged 12-19 years who were either living in two-parent households, single-parent households, or no-parent households, and with valid response to the smoking status questions from the Canadian Community Health Survey. MEASURES: Multivariate logistic regression was used to test the presence and strength of the association between household structure and the likelihood of smoking while controlling for age, sex, household education, and exposure to secondhand smoking. RESULTS: The odds of youth smoking in the single-parent household was 1.78 times greater than the odds of youth smoking in two-parent households. Similarly, the odds of youth smoking in no-parent households was 1.47 times greater than the odds of youth smoking in two-parent households. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that there is an association between household structure and smoking among adolescents in Canada. Findings might be helpful for decision makers to recognize the context within which adolescents initiate and sustain smoking when developing strategies for the prevention and cessation of smoking among youth.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".