MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2987806433

Student-led Evaluation of the McMaster University Tobacco and Smoke-Free Campus Policy

2018· article· en· W2987806433 on OpenAlexaffabout
Harman Singh Sandhu, Sarah Haalboom, Salman Surangiwala, Jennifer Friesen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoking cessationTest (biology)CharterAshaEnvironmental healthTobacco controlDescriptive statisticsMedical educationBusinessMedicinePsychologyPolitical sciencePublic healthNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: McMaster University is a Canadian post-secondary institution focused on promoting health on campus in accordance with the 2015 Okanagan Charter. McMaster University implemented a Tobacco and Smoke-Free campus policy in 2018 and became the first 100% smoke-free campus in Ontario. The aim of this study was to evaluate and describe the impact of this policy.Methods: A cross-sectional community survey was conducted, a pre-post litter audit was performed, utilization of reduction and cessation services was tracked, and compliance data was analyzed. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon’s ranks sign test, paired samples t-test, and thematic analysis was performed with significance level at 0.05.Results: Over 1602 individuals responded to the survey. Most were aware of the policy prior to completing the survey (~93%). Respondents self-reported experiencing significantly less second-hand smoke on campus after the policy was implemented (p < 0.0001). Out of smokers, about half (52.2%) did not use tobacco or smoking products on university-owned property. There was an overall decrease in amount of litter from pre to post-policy implementation and an increase in the delivery and use of reduction and cessation services. Compliance data showed an increasing trend of security-related responses over the first four months, which is consistent with the overall gradual implementation of the policy.Conclusion: The results indicated that future policy implementation should focus on increasing communication and education regarding the policy, awareness and availability of reduction and cessation services, and making compliance more effective. This work is a useful resource for other post-secondary institutions considering similar policies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.336
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→