Tobacco use among varsity athletes – why do they do it and how do we make it stop: a brief report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study explores the motivations underlying tobacco use among varsity athletes. A cross-sectional exploratory mixed method approach was used. Both tobacco users (TU) and non-tobacco users (NTU) completed an online survey of closed and open-ended questions. These questions focused on tobacco use, motivations for tobacco use, teammate and coaches' perceptions of athlete tobacco use, and self-perceived effects of tobacco use on health and athletic performance. Thirty-eight completed surveys were included of which 12 were TU and 26 were NTU. The majority of TU indicated that they used products during the off-season. Motivations for using tobacco products included social influences, stress-relief, and increasing energy. TU mostly indicated that there are negative effects on their health but not on their athletic performance, whereas NTU reported potential detrimental effects on their teammate's performance. Overall, varsity athletes who use tobacco products are aware of the health effects and negative opinions of their teammates.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".