Discrepancies between youth and parent perceptions of their household environment relevant to smoking: a secondary analysis of the 2004/05 Canadian Youth Smoking Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perceptions of youth in grades 5 to 9 and parents regarding their household environment relevant to smoking socialization. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of the 2004/05 Canadian Youth Smoking Survey and corresponding parent survey, and used the McNemar Test to compare youth and parent responses. RESULTS: Results showed statistically significant patterns of disagreement between youth and parent responses at most levels of youth smoking uptake regarding parental smoking, household rules around smoking, and smoking in the home and vehicles. When youth and parents disagreed, the following patterns emerged: non-susceptible, non-smoking youth perceived their parents as non-smokers and youth with more smoking experience perceived their parents as smokers; youth at all levels of smoking uptake perceived fewer rules in the home than parents indicated, more smoking in the home than parents indicated, and exposure to smoking in vehicles in contrast to vehicle smoking bans indicated by parents. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the perceptions of youth and parents regarding household variables related to the socialization of tobacco use. The discrepancies between youth and parent responses suggest that there is room to improve on establishing household environments that clearly condemn the use of tobacco, which may affect youth susceptibility to future 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".