MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187449270 · doi:10.1136/tc.11.4.354

Assessment of nicotine dependence symptoms in adolescents: a comparison of five indicators

2002· article· en· W2187449270 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer O’Loughlin, Joseph R. DiFranza, Jill Tarasuk, Garbis Meshefedjian, E McMillan-Davey, Gilles Paradis, Rachel F. Tyndale, Paul B. S. Clarke, Jill Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Control · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNicotine dependenceNicotinePsychologyEnvironmental healthClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychometric properties, test-retest reliability, and convergent construct validity of five indicators of nicotine dependence (ND) symptoms in adolescents. DESIGN: Analysis of baseline data from a prospective study on the natural history of ND in 1264 adolescents aged 12-13 years. SETTING: Ten Montreal high schools. SUBJECTS: 233 grade 7 students who had smoked cigarettes one or more times in the three months preceding the baseline data collection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five indicators of ND symptoms including two that are multi-dimensional (a proxy measure of ICD-10 criteria for tobacco dependence; the Hooked on Nicotine Checklist (HONC)) and three new indicators of "symptom clusters" that emerged from principal component analysis (ND/cravings, withdrawal symptoms, self medication). RESULTS: All five indicators demonstrated acceptable internal and test-retest reliability. The correlation between the HONC and ND/cravings was 0.910. All other correlations between indicators ranged between 0.716-0.824. There was considerable overlap in the independent correlates identified for each indicator. CONCLUSIONS: All five indicators performed well psychometrically. Until the meaning, relative importance, and usefulness of each scale is clarified in longitudinal work, decisions regarding which scale(s) are most informative will depend more on the content of the scales, the need for a multi- or unidimensional indicator, and whether or not the scale is theory based.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.299 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations91
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTobacco ControlSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207