Working Memory and Response Inhibition Effects on At-Risk Youth’s Willingness to Use Multiple Nicotine and Tobacco Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Past research has suggested that executive functions, such as working memory and response inhibition, predict the use of nicotine and tobacco products (NTPs). The current study extends prior research by assessing whether response inhibition and working memory are associated with at-risk youth’s willingness to use NTPs. Methods: A sample of 1060 at-risk youth were recruited from alternative high schools in southern California. Participants were randomly assigned to complete the Symmetry Span Task, an indicator of working memory ability, or the cued Go/No-Go task, an indicator of response inhibition. Participants who reported never using NTPs (n = 348) indicated how willing they would be try NTPs. Results: Results from a cross-sectional zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) regression suggest that females with stronger working memory skills and individuals with weaker response inhibition skills were more likely to be unwilling to use NTPs. Conclusion: While further research is needed to determine whether executive functions can prospectively predict NTP use among at-risk youth, the current study indicates that both working memory and response inhibition may play a significant role.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".