‘The missing picture’: tobacco use through the eyes of smokers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of visual methodologies has gained increased prominence among health researchers working with socially marginalised populations, including those studying tobacco and other types of substance use. OBJECTIVES: This article draws from two separate studies combining qualitative and photographic methods to illustrate the unique insights that visual research with smokers can generate for tobacco control. METHODS: A purposeful selection of photographs and captions produced by research participants in a study with (1) 20 new fathers that smoke and, (2) a study with 21 adolescent girls that smoke are analysed and discussed in detail. RESULTS: Images produced by smokers illustrate the roles of gender and social context in shaping smoking status, as well as the private struggles with tobacco use experienced by smokers in their day-to-day lives and relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Photographic methods have the potential to generate information that may assist in developing tobacco control messaging and programming that speaks to smokers' perceptions of their tobacco use.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it