The effects of nicotine content information on subjective and behavioural responses to nicotine-containing and denicotinized cigarettes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of nicotine content information on subjective and behavioural responses to nicotine-containing and denicotinized cigarettes were examined in 30 dependent and 30 nondependent 12-h abstinent smokers. Using the four conditions of a balanced placebo design, participants were given either nicotine-containing cigarettes or denicotinized cigarettes during two laboratory sessions but were told that they received nicotine-containing cigarettes in one session and nicotine-free cigarettes in the other. During each session, participants completed subjective assessments before and after sampling three puffs from the assigned cigarette and were then invited to earn additional cigarette puffs using a computerized progressive ratio task. Regardless of the actual nicotine content, participants self-administered more cigarette puffs when they were told the cigarettes contained nicotine than when told the cigarettes were nicotine-free and tended to show a decrease in craving associated with the intention to smoke after cigarette sampling when told the cigarettes were nicotine-free relative to when they were told the cigarettes contained nicotine. However, regardless of nicotine instructions, participants given nicotine-containing cigarettes showed greater postsampling increases in subjective ratings of 'satisfied' and 'stimulated' than did those given denicotinized cigarettes. The findings suggest that nicotine dose expectancy can affect both subjective and behavioural indices of smoking reinforcement but that the satisfying and stimulating aspects of smoking are related to actual nicotine administration.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".