MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031922085 · doi:10.1007/s11469-020-00312-1

Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking and Associated Risk Factors among Bangladeshi University Students: An Exploratory Pilot Study

2020· article· en· W3031922085 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Sabbir Ahmed, Liton Chandra Sen, Safayet Khan, Fakir Md Yunus, Mark D. Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersPatuakhali Science and Technology UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsEnvironmental healthHealth psychologyMedicinePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the past two decades, there has been a global rise in the prevalence of waterpipe tobacco smoking. Waterpipe tobacco smoking involves the inhalation of heated tobacco smoke after passing through water, and it has been associated with an identified dependence effect similar to that found with cigarette smoking. Despite the popularity of waterpipe tobacco among youth (and in particular, university students) in many countries, detailed data of its usage are lacking in Bangladesh. Therefore, the present study was conducted to explore waterpipe tobacco smoking behavior and normative beliefs among university students in Bangladesh and to assess the factors associated with waterpipe tobacco use. A quantitative cross-sectional survey was carried out among 340 Bangladeshi university students (64.4% male; mean age 21.6 years). Among participants, 13.5% reported they had ever smoked tobacco from a waterpipe and 9.4% had it in past 30 days. Among past 30-day users, 72% were categorized as having waterpipe smoking dependence (n = 23). No females in the sample had ever smoked using a waterpipe. Maternal occupation, monthly expenditure, and regular smoking status were major predominant factors associated with waterpipe smoking behavior of the students. The study is of existential value given that there are no prior studies ever carried out in Bangladesh previously. Recommendations are provided based on the study’s findings, particularly in relation to what action is needed from universities in Bangladesh.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health and AddictionSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207