[Measure methods of tobacco abstinence according to recommendations--own and Canadian research finding].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tobacco abstinence measure in smoking cessation interventions is the key methodological issue. We can find different methods of short- and long-term tobacco abstinence measure and outcome comparisons in the scientific papers. The methodological guidelines have been provided by recommendations of the Society of Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2001, 2002, 2003 and the Society for the Study of Addiction 2005. OBJECTIVE: Preparation of the rules of tobacco abstinence rates calculation from extremely conservative to extremely liberal ones according to recommendations and comparison of own research and Tom Baker Cancer Centre Study TBC Calgary, Canada outcomes. METHODS: The own empirical data gathered in 2001-2007 for 627 participants of group-based smoking cessation program with follow-up in 2008-2009 and the TBC data gathered in 1986-1990 for 971 participants of group behavior intervention with follow-up in 1995 were used in the analyses. RESULTS: Tobacco abstinence rates were differentiated depending on an observation period (range from 12% do 17%) and the methodological approach from extremely conservative to liberal one (range from 17% to 30%). CONCLUSIONS: To improve the scientific quality of long-term outcomes of smoking cessation interventions and comparisons the list of ten key methodological questions were prepared for researcher to answer them on the conceptualization stage of the project. Further research regarding smoking cessation interventions using methodological guidelines of the SRNT Work Groups recommendations are needed.
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 | 0.145 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".