Differences in norms towards the use of nicotine vaping products among adult smokers, former smokers and nicotine vaping product users: cross‐sectional findings from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine whether norms towards nicotine vaping product (NVP) use varied between Australia, Canada, England and the United States and by socio-demographics, smoking and NVP status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional data from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. SETTING: Four countries with distinct regulatory policies relating to the sale and advertising of NVPs: Australia (most restrictive), Canada (restrictive), England and the United States (least restrictive). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 10900 adult (age 18+) current smokers, former smokers, or at least weekly NVP users. Respondents were from Australia (n = 1366), Canada (n = 3309), England (n = 3835) and the United States (n = 2390). MEASUREMENTS: Questions permitted the categorization of respondents as current smokers, former smokers, NVP users and socio-demographic categories (sex, age, country, ethnicity, income and education). Further questions were asked regarding the frequency of exposure to NVPs in public, whether they had a partner or close friends who vaped and whether they believed society or those considered important to them approved of NVPs. FINDINGS: Adjusting for relevant covariates, compared with Australian respondents, those in England, Canada and the United States were more likely to report frequent exposure to NVPs in public (83.1%, 57.3% and 48.3%, respectively, compared to 19.8% in Australia; P < 0.0001), having a partner who vaped (13.8%, 7.1% and 7.7%, respectively, compared to 2.1% in Australia; P < 0.0001) and having close friend(s) who vaped (31.7%, 25.3%, 20.9%, respectively, compared to 10.0% in Australia; P < 0.0001). Compared with Australian respondents, respondents from England were more likely to report that society (27.6% compared to 12.3% in Australia; P < 0.0001) and people important to them approved of NVP use (28.9% compared to 14.3% in Australia; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Norms towards nicotine vaping product (NVP) use appear to vary among countries with different regulatory contexts regarding sales and advertising.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".