Do Social Inequalities in Smoking Differ by Immigration Status in Young Adults Living in an Urban Setting? Findings From the Interdisciplinary Study of Inequalities in Smoking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We assessed whether social inequalities in smoking observed among young adults born in Canada were also apparent in same-age immigrants. METHODS: Data were drawn from an investigation of social inequalities in smoking conducted in an urban setting (Montreal, Canada). The sample included 2077 young adults age 18 to 25 (56.6% female; 18.9% immigrants who had lived in Canada 11.6 (SD 6.4) years on average). The association between education and current smoking was examined in multivariable logistic regression analyses conducted separately in young adults born in Canada and in immigrants. RESULTS: About 19.5% of immigrants were current smokers compared to 23.8% of young adults born in Canada. In immigrants, relative to those with university education, the adjusted odds ratios (OR) (95% confidence interval) for current smoking were 1.2 (0.6, 2.3) among those with pre-university/vocational training and 1.5 (0.7, 2.9) among those with high school education. In non-immigrants, the adjusted ORs were 1.9 (1.4, 2.5) among those with pre-university/vocational training and 4.0 (2.9, 5.5) among those with high school. CONCLUSION: Young adults who had immigrated to Canada did not manifest the strong social gradient in smoking apparent in young adults born in Canada. Increased understanding of the underpinnings of this difference could inform development of interventions that aim to reduce social inequalities in smoking.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".