MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2225255997 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009549

Cigarette smoking susceptibility among youth alternate tobacco product users: implications of flavoured tobacco from a national cross-sectional Canadian sample (YSS 2012/2013)

2015· article· en· W2225255997 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leia Minaker, Alanna Shuh, Nghia Nguyen, Sunday Azagba, Steve Manske

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsImpactUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTobacco productEnvironmental healthCross-sectional studyTobacco useCigarette smokingPublic healthPopulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Declines in cigarette smoking have been accompanied by increases in alternative tobacco product (ATP) use, particularly among youth. This study examines smoking susceptibility and ATP use in a national sample of Canadian youth. METHODS: Data from grades 9-12 students who participated in the 2012/2013 Youth Smoking Survey, a nationally generalisable sample of Canadian students (n=27,404) were used to examine cigarette smoking susceptibility among never smokers (n=17,396). Logistic regression models were used to examine differences in smoking susceptibility by use of flavoured and all ATPs and by sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 30% of Canadian grades 9-12 never smokers were susceptible to cigarette smoking. Compared to never users, those who had ever tried ATPs (OR=1.96, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.42) and those who had ever tried flavoured ATPs (OR=2.20, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.96) had significantly higher odds of being susceptible to cigarette smoking. CONCLUSIONS: ATP use is associated with smoking susceptibility among youth never smokers. Findings from this study, along with existing evidence, can be used by policymakers to improve regulation around youth access to ATPs (particularly flavoured varieties).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→