‘It’s one of those “It’ll never happen to me” things’: young women’s constructions of smoking and risk
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we examine how young women make sense of the risks associated with smoking cigarettes. We recruited young women smokers and ex-smokers living in Australia in 2014 and 2015 to participate in semi-structured interviews and a participant-produced photography activity on young women’s experiences of smoking and smoking-related risk. We analysed the data using discourse analysis to examine how young women positioned themselves in relation to smoking-related risk, and how this was shaped by discourses of health, risk and femininity. We identified four dominant interpretative repertoires: ‘the risks of smoking are self-evident’, ‘it’s not going to happen to me’, ‘smoking as a lesser evil’ and ‘smoking to cope with stress and emotion’. Through our analysis, we found that by drawing on these repertoires, participants were able to position the risks of smoking as both acceptable and unacceptable. Participants also made use of several of these repertoires to position anti-smoking messages as ineffective. We place these findings in the context of broader health and risk discourses surrounding young women’s use of smoking to reinforce and subvert representations of ‘respectable’ femininity. We identify ways in which public health approaches could and should be developed to recognise the complexity and contradiction inherent in young women’s lay accounts of smoking-related risk and situate smoking risks in the context of young women’s everyday lives.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it