Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Smoking continues to be a major public health issue worldwide. It is associated with elevated rates of potential years of life lost, mortality, reduced life expectancy and chronic diseases. This dissertation contains three essays on the consequences and control of tobacco in Canada. Essay one (Chapter 2) used the 2009/10 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) to examine the prevalence and the factors associated with smoking behavior during pregnancy. Results from multivariable logistic regression revealed that the odds of smoking during pregnancy were decreased with increasing age, having a regular family doctor, and having highest level of family income. Mothers who reported poor or fair self-perceived health and those who had at least one mental illness had greater odds of smoking during pregnancy. Essay two (Chapter 3) used data from the 2012/13 Canadian Youth Smoking Survey to estimate the elasticity of smoking initiation and intensity. We found that a 1% increase in price leads to a 1.13% reduction in initiation and a 1.02% reduction in intensity; while 1% increase in income leads to a 0.07% increase in initiation and a 0.06% increase in intensity. The effects of pocket money are much smaller in magnitude than the response of smoking to the price of cigarettes. Essay three (Chapter 4) used data from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey to examine whether smoking status is associated with a reduction in health related quality of life (HRQoL) as measured by the Health Utility Index (HUI3); to calculate the overall loss of HRQoL over a lifetime and economic burden of loss; and to compare smoking related losses in HRQoL by age and gender. The results demonstrated that smoking was significantly and negatively associated with HRQoL loss and also is associated with substantial individual and societal economic cost. In summary, the findings from this research not only can guide public healthcare providers to promote health within the target population, but also has important implications for tobacco control policies. Enhanced tobacco prevention will not only improve HRQoL but also will generate returns on investment from smoking cessation programs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".