MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4244226400 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/jq4s9

E-cigarette use among students and e-cigarette specialty retailer presence near schools

2016· preprint· en· W4244226400 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Georgiana Bostean

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyQuarter (Canadian coin)ConfoundingCigarette smokingEnvironmental healthLogistic regressionMileDemographyPsychologyMedicineGeographyFamily medicineSociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. This study examined the association between presence of e-cigarette specialty retailers near schools and e-cigarette use among middle and high school students in Orange County (OC), CA.Methods. The OC subsample of the 2013-2014 California Healthy Kids Survey (N=67,701) was combined with geocoded e-cigarette retailers to determine whether a retailer was present within one-quarter mile of each public school in OC. Multilevel logistic regression models evaluated individual-level and school-level e-cigarette use correlates among middle and high school students.Results. Among middle school students, the presence of an e-cigarette retailer within one-quarter mile of their school predicted lifetime e-cigarette use (OR = 1.70, 95% CI=1.02, 2.83), controlling for confounders but no effect for current use. No significant effect was found for high school students.Conclusions. E-cigarette specialty retailers clustered around schools may be an environmental influence on student e-cigarette experimentation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→