Smokers' sources of e-cigarette awareness and risk information
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
INTRODUCTION: Few studies have explored sources of e-cigarette awareness and peoples' e-cigarette information needs, interests or behaviors. This study contributes to both domains of e-cigarette research. METHODS: Results are based on a 2014 e-cigarette focused survey of 519 current smokers from a nationally representative research panel. RESULTS: Smokers most frequently reported seeing e-cigarettes in stores (86.4%) and used in person (83%). Many (73%) had also heard about e-cigarettes from known users, broadcast media ads (68%), other (print, online) advertisements (71.5%), and/or from the news (60.9%); sources of awareness varied by e-cigarette experience. Most smokers (59.9%) believed e-cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes, a belief attributed to "common sense" (76.4%), the news (39.2%) and advertisements (37.2%). However, 79.5% felt e-cigarette safety information was important. Over one-third said they would turn to a doctor first for e-cigarette safety information, though almost a quarter said they would turn to the Internet or product packaging first. Most (59.6%) ranked doctors as the most trustworthy risk source, and 6.8% had asked a health professional about e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore the content of e-cigarette information sources, their potential impact, and ways they might be strengthened or changed through regulatory and/or educational efforts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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