Association between Weight and Smoking Not Mediated by Weight Loss Attempts or Bullying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Youth smoking and obesity may both be mediated by weight control behaviors and experiences of bullying. This study examines associations between smoking and obesity among youth, and explores whether associations are mediated by weight loss attempts or bullying experiences. METHODS: Data from 24,173 grade 9 to 12 students in the COMPASS study (2012-13) were used to examine the prevalence of self-reported smoking, weight status, attempting to lose weight, and being a victim of bullying. Generalized linear mixed effects models were used to examine correlates of smoking. RESULTS: Among youth, 11% reported currently smoking, 20% were overweight or obese, 42% reported attempting to lose weight, and 18% reported being bullied. Girls who reported attempting to lose weight had higher odds of smoking (OR = 1.42, p = .0039), and students who reported being bullied had higher odds of smoking (OR = 1.85, p < .0001). Both variables were significantly associated with smoking independent of weight status. CONCLUSIONS: For girls, weight loss attempts were associated with smoking. For both sexes, being bullied was associated with smoking, independent of weight status. Programs attempting to reduce smoking among youth should consider the effects of weight control behaviors and bullying irrespective of weight status.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".