MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752515600 · doi:10.1093/heapro/dax048

Aboriginal youth’s perceptions of traditional and commercial tobacco in Canada

2017· article· en· W2752515600 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fidji Gendron

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsFirst Nations University of Canada
FundersUniversity of Regina
KeywordsTobacco useRecreationLimitingPerceptionCeremonyMedicineEnvironmental healthPsychologyGeographyPopulationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although tobacco has played an important role in Aboriginal culture for millennia, its more recent recreational use has resulted in serious health concerns among Aboriginal users. In Canada, First Nations youth have higher smoking rates than non-Aboriginal youth. The goals of this study were to examine Aboriginal youth's perceptions of traditional and commercial tobacco and to evaluate perception changes following workshops on traditional uses of tobacco by Elders and other community members, native plants used in ceremony and health impacts of cigarette smoking. The twenty-five Aboriginal youth participants ranged in age from 9 to 14 years old. Results show that workshops did not alter participants' knowledge about tobacco and ceremonies but those studied were more effective at articulating their knowledge through open-ended questionnaires after the workshops. These participants were able to identify more traditional tobacco uses and plants that could be used in ceremonies instead of commercial tobacco. Culturally appropriate education about traditional and commercial tobacco use may be effective in limiting its misuse by Aboriginal youth.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207