MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967877718 · doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2019.100215

Exposure to secondhand smoke in vehicles among Canadian adolescents: Years after the adoption of smoke-free car laws

2019· article· en· W2967877718 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sunday Azagba, Keely Latham, Lingpeng Shan

Bibliographic record

VenueAddictive Behaviors Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecondhand smokeSmokeEnvironmental healthAdvertisingBusinessLawPolitical scienceMedicineEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) can result in several adverse health consequences. SHS concentrations in vehicles can significantly exceed levels present in other enclosed spaces. Years after the adoption of smoke-free car laws, this study examined the prevalence of exposure to SHS in vehicles among adolescents. Data were utilized from the 2016-2017 Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey (n = 48,444). The prevalence of exposure to SHS in cars was estimated by grade level and demographic characteristics. The results showed a gradient by grade level in exposure to SHS with students in upper-grade levels reporting a higher prevalence of SHS in cars. SHS varied by province, with the lowest rate found in British Columbia (15.6%) and the highest in Saskatchewan (36.9%). The provinces with laws that extend protections to older children also had high rates of SHS exposure among students in upper-grade levels. Students exposed to SHS were more likely to engage in risky behaviors, including the use of marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, and e-cigarettes. Despite laws prohibiting smoking in vehicles carrying children, SHS prevalence remains high. While enforcement of these laws may be challenging, persuasion campaigns highlighting that children are especially vulnerable to the health risks of SHS may be beneficial.

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictive Behaviors ReportsSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207