A Qualitative Study of Attitudes towards Smoking and Anti-Smoking Measures among Korean Male Smokers in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to explore how Korean male smokers living in Australia talk and feel about smoking and how they have understood and experienced tobacco control policies in Australia—including price increase, display ban, plain packaging, and graphic warning labels. A qualitative study was conducted based on in-depth face-to-face interviews with 8 Korean male smokers aged 23–40 years living in Canberra. Participants discussed social and cultural conditions in Korea under which smoking is practiced and maintained. Smoking as a means of socialising and relaxation were consistently discussed as the main reasons for continued smoking which was deeply embedded in their everyday lives as habit or part of routines. The health risks of smoking were not among the immediate or ultimate considerations influencing participants. Participants commented that price increases had affected them most but other measures had little impact on their smoking behaviours, although they acknowledged their potentials in deterring younger people. Future anti-smoking interventions in Korea should address the significant social and cultural determinants of smoking and acknowledge smokers’ own understanding of their smoking and anti-smoking measures. Appreciating smokers’ diverse representations of their own smoking and their attitudes towards health and anti-smoking measures would increase acceptance of policies and the probability that they will be successful, leading to positive outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".