Has the distribution of smoking across young adult transition milestones changed over the past 20 years? Evidence from the 1970 British Cohort Study (1996) and Next Steps (2015–16)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transitions into work and family life during young adulthood exacerbate differences in the progression of smoking over the life-course. Few have considered how changes in smoking and the transition to adulthood in the past two decades have influenced these relationships over time. METHODS: We compared the distribution of smoking at ages 25-26 across transition milestones among 3764 men and 4568 women in the 1970 British Cohort study (1996) and 3426 men and 4281 women in the Next Steps study (2015-16). We regressed occasional and daily smoking status on educational attainment, economic activity, living arrangements, relationship status, and parenthood, adjusting for family background, socio-demographics, and smoking history. RESULTS: There were few differences in associations between the 1996 and 2015-16 samples. Young men and women were less likely to smoke if they had higher education, were homeowners, and cohabited with a partner. Women were less likely to smoke occasionally if they were full-time students, and men were less likely to smoke daily if they were employed full-time and not living with children. However, comparing associations in 2015-16 to 1996: 1) in men, higher education had a weaker negative association and living with a partner had a stronger negative association with daily smoking; 2) in women, independently renting had a weaker positive association with daily smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Despite considerable changes in smoking and the transition to adulthood over the past two decades, the distribution of smoking at ages 25-26 across transition milestones has been relatively stable during this time period in Great Britain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".