[Adjusted tobacco legislation and accompanying actions for the benefit of future children of women smokers].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnant women are a population group of special interest as far as smoking is concerned. It is not only their own health but also that of their unborn children that is implicated. Consequently, achieving short-term abstention is relevant as well as long-term cessation. A paper published elsewhere in this issue provides empirical evidence on the smoking status of pregnant women and illustrates that currently one quarter of them smoke. For approximately 25% of pregnant women, their pregnancy is reason to stop smoking and for the majority this then results in lasting abstention. However, 11% of pregnant smokers keep on smoking throughout their pregnancy. These figures compare favourably with the 28% of pregnant women smokers in the Dutch population, but should nevertheless be reason for concern for the health of mother and child. One of the reasons for the high levels of smokers amongst pregnant women in the Dutch population could well be the waning political support for public health actions following tobacco legislation that came into effect in 2004. The effectiveness of smoking cessation can be enhanced by a combination of individual and public actions. For example, partners of smoking pregnant women should also be involved in quitting interventions. Moreover, the current and anxiously awaited proposal by the Minister of Health to impose a ban on smoking in the public domain of bars and restaurants will offer an ideal opportunity for promoting non-smoking on the part ofindividuals. Such a development will result in considerable health benefits for the unborn children of smoking, pregnant women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.028 |
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".