MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168802822 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006643

A scoping review protocol to map the research foci trends in tobacco control over the last decade

2015· review· en· W2168802822 on OpenAlexafffund
Gayle Halas, Annette Schultz, Janet Rothney, Leah Goertzen, Pamela Wener, Alan Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersManitoba Health Research CouncilHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMedicineTobacco controlGrey literatureScopusProtocol (science)MEDLINESystematic reviewMultidisciplinary approachMedical educationAlternative medicinePublic healthPsychological interventionNursingPathologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco dependence and smoke exposure have been global epidemics with health consequences recognised by the US Surgeon General since the 1960s and 1970s, respectively. During this period, a vast body of research evidence has emerged including many reviews of primary research studies targeting various tobacco control strategies. Published review studies synthesise primary evidence, providing a rich source for mapping the broad range of topics and research foci along with revealing areas of evidence deficits. In this paper, we outline our scoping review protocol to systematically review published review articles specific to tobacco control and primary prevention over the last 10 years. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology as a guide, our scoping review of published reviews begins by searching several databases: PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo and the Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC). Our multidisciplinary team has formulated search strategies and two reviewers will independently screen eligible studies for final study selection. Bibliographic data and abstract content will be collected and analysed using a tool developed iteratively by the research team. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A scoping review of published review articles is a novel approach for examining the breadth of literature regarding tobacco control strategies and, as a secondary analysis, does not require ethics approval. We anticipate results will identify research gaps as well as novel ideas for primary prevention research specific to tobacco control strategies concerning intervention, programming and policy. Although this is our first step in establishing a foundation for a research agenda, we will be disseminating results through journals and conferences targeting primary care providers and tobacco control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.190
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1900.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0240.022
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0080.011
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1110.036

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 head0.468
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.161 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations68
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207