Smoking behaviour, a survey of Canadians in Qatar / by Noel Pendergast.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction \nCanada has relatively strict tobacco control policies as public smoking is banned in most jurisdictions and cigarettes are heavily taxed. In Canada, cigarettes cost approximately $10 for a package o f 20. Corresponding with an increase in tobacco control over the past several decades, smoking prevalence in Canada has decreased significantly, currently at 19%. Qatar has less strict tobacco control with a high prevalence of public smoking and \ncigarettes are not taxed. In Qatar, cigarettes cost approximately $2 for a package of 20. Data on smoking prevalence in Qatar are difficult to collect due to cultural and religious restrictions. However, some studies have estimated the smoking prevalence in Qatar to be greater than 35%. \nRationale \nThe rationale of this study was to evaluate the effect of a decrease in tobacco control on the smoking behaviour of Canadians. \nMethods \nCross-sectional design utilizing a web-based questionnaire to a convenience sample (n=181) of Canadians employed at a college in Qatar. \nResults \nPrevalence of smoking among Canadians was found to be significantly higher while living in Qatar (Qatar - 18%, Canada - 14%; p < .001). Over 60% of smokers consumed more cigarettes in Qatar. Current smokers cited low prices and increased public smoking as reasons for their recidivism and increased consumption. \nConclusions and Implications \nThe availability of cheaper cigarettes and increased access to public smoking may lead to an increase in smoking prevalence and consumption of cigarettes. The results are important because they indicate if tobacco control in Canada is decreased; the prevalence of smoking and consumption of tobacco may increase.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".