MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782344232 · doi:10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_311_16

Modeling The Underlying Tobacco Smoking Predictors Among 1st Year University Students In Iran

2017· article· en· W2782344232 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hasan Sahebihagh, Mohammad Hajizadeh, Hossein Ansari, Azadeh Lesani, Ali Fakhari, Asghar Mohammadpoorasl

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Preventive Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTobacco useFamily medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There are scant studies on the prevalence and determinants of tobacco smoking among 1 st year university students in Iran. We aim to determine the prevalence of substance abuse and identify factors related with tobacco smoking in 1 st year students of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences (QUMS). Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on sociodemographic, cigarette smoking, hookah smoking, and related risk factors among 521 1 st year students in QUMS between January and February 2014. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated with substance abuse among students. Results: The descriptive statistics indicated that the prevalence of lifetime cigarette and hookah smoking was 8.6% (confidence interval [CI] 95%: 6.5–11.4) and 35.5% (CI 95%: 31.5–39.7), respectively. After adjustment for other factors, being male, the presence of any smoker in the family and having smoker friends were factors associated with cigarette and hookah smoking among students. Our findings also revealed the co-occurrence of risk-taking behaviors among students. Conclusions: Our study showed considerably low prevalence of tobacco smoking among 1 st year students. Longitudinal studies are necessary to approve the observed results of this study and thus allow for a certain generalization of the observations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Preventive MedicineSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207