<b>Trends in exposure to and perceptions of e-cigarette marketing among youth in England, Canada and the United States between 2017 and 2019</b>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
E-Cigarette marketing may influence e-cigarette use among youth. This study examined reported exposure to and perceptions of e-cigarette marketing among youth between 2017 and 2019 across countries with varying e-cigarette marketing restrictions. Cross-sectional online surveys were conducted with 35 490 youth aged 16-19 from England, Canada and the United States in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Weighted logistic regression models examined trends in the adjusted prevalence of self-reported exposure to e-cigarette marketing and the perceived appeal of e-cigarette ads between 2017 and 2019, by country and by smoking/vaping status. Reports of frequent exposure to e-cigarette marketing increased between 2017 and 2019 in all countries, but less so in England, where e-cigarette marketing is more restricted. Perceiving e-cigarette marketing as appealing increased from 2017 to 2019 in Canada and the United States, but not in England. In England, exposure to e-cigarette marketing did not increase in prohibited channels between 2017 and 2019. Between 2017 and 2019, never-users' reports increased for exposure to and appeal of e-cigarette marketing. The results suggest some effectiveness of e-cigarette marketing bans in England and receptivity to e-cigarette marketing among youth never users.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it