MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333920362 · doi:10.5993/ajhb.38.6.15

Smoking Cessation in an Urban Population in China

2014· article· en· W2333920362 on OpenAlexaff
Tingzhong Yang, Aimei Mao, Xueying Feng, Shuhan Jiang, Dan Wu, Joan L. Bottorff, Gayl Sarbit, Xiaohe Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Health Behavior · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionZhejiang UniversityNational Social Science Fund of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSmoking cessationLogistic regressionMedicineAddictionEnvironmental healthChinaQuit smokingDemographyPopulationNicotinePsychiatryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine smoking cessation among urban-based Chinese. METHODS: Multi-stage random sampling was used to obtain a sample from 21 cities in China. Two logistic regression models were established to identify factors influencing quit intention and smoking cessation. RESULTS: Prevalence of smoking cessation was 10.1%; 45.5% of smokers intended to quit. Women and professionals had higher cessation rates than men and nonprofessionals. Rates of quit intention were highest among managers and clerks, and lowest among those who used gifted tobacco, smoked alone, and reported addiction to nicotine. CONCLUSION: Individual and city level factors are associated with quit intention and smoking cessation among urban-dwelling Chinese smokers. This information should guide smoking cessation programs and inform health policy.

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)0.001
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Health BehaviorSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207