Exploring the association between E-cigarette retailer proximity and density to schools and youth E-cigarette use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited evidence exists examining the association between e-cigarette retailer density and e-cigarette use among youth. This study explored whether e-cigarette retailer proximity and density to schools were associated with youth use of e-cigarettes in 4 Canadian provinces. Between October and December 2017, an online search identified e-cigarette retailers within 500 m, 1000 m, and 1500 m circular buffer zones around high schools (N = 122) that participated in the COMPASS study in 2017–18. Retailer proximity/density data were linked to student-level data (N = 63,400 students). Multilevel regression models examined the association between e-cigarette retailer proximity and density and ever and current e-cigarette use, controlling for relevant covariates. Results indicated the average school had <1 e-cigarette retailer within 500 m, 1000 m, and 1500 m. Significant between-school variability in the likelihood of ever [σ2μ0 = 0.215 (0.030), p < .0001] and current [σ2μ0 = 0.258 (0.036), p < .0001] e-cigarette use was found among students. However, after controlling for relevant covariates, e-cigarette retailer proximity and density surrounding a school were not significantly associated with the likelihood of ever or currently using e-cigarettes. These findings suggest that students are accessing e-cigarettes through other sources.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".