Dataset on cigarette smokers in six South African townships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 2453 smokers were interviewed in townships over two rounds of data collection. Townships are low-income, urban areas characterised by overpopulation, poor service delivery, crime, and poor socioeconomic outcomes. Township residents typically live in poverty. Data were collected from six townships in four of South Africa's nine provinces, namely Gauteng (Eldorado Park and Ivory Park), Western Cape (Khayelitsha and Mitchell's Plain), Free State (Thabong) and KwaZulu-Natal (Umlazi). These townships were chosen to represent both the geographical and racial spread of low socioeconomic areas in South Africa. Round 1 data (n = 1260) were collected from October to November 2017, and round 2 data (n = 1193) were collected from July to August 2018. The sample includes two of South Africa's four population groups: African and mixed race (locally referred to as “Coloured”, which describes people of mixed Khoisan, Malay, European, and black African ancestry). Since few Whites and Asians live in townships, they were not sampled. Households were selected via a random walk through each township. One smoker per household was interviewed (if a household contained at least one available smoker). We aimed to interview 200 adult smokers (aged 18+ years) per township per round. If a household had more than one smoker, a random selection determined which smoker to interview. Respondents were asked about their most recent cigarette purchase, specifically packaging type (single stick, pack, or carton), number of items purchased, brand, type of outlet where the cigarettes were bought, and the total amount paid for cigarettes. Respondents were also asked about other tobacco use in the household, and about their perceptions regarding illegal cigarettes. Socioeconomic and demographic information was collected at the individual and household level. The data has been used to estimate illicit trade (https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2020/03/10/tobaccocontrol-2019–055136.info), and to analyse the determinants of smoking intensity (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335520300590).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".