MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253616938 · doi:10.1001/jama.295.24.2842

Use of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Among Students Aged 13-15 Years—Worldwide, 1999-2005

2006· article· en· W4253616938 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnvironmental healthTobacco productTobacco useTobacco harm reductionPublic healthTobacco controlSmoking epidemiologyTobacco in AlabamaPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of tobacco in any form is a major preventable cause of premature death and disease. Globally, nearly 5 million persons die every year from tobacco-related illnesses, with disproportionately higher mortality occurring in developing countries. The Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS), initiated in 1999 by the World Health Organization (WHO), CDC, and the Canadian Public Health Association, is a school-based survey that includes questions on prevalence of cigarette and other tobacco use; attitudes toward tobacco; access to tobacco products; exposure to secondhand smoke, school curricula on tobacco, media, and advertising; and smoking cessation. This report presents estimates of self-reported cigarette and other tobacco-product use during 1999-2005 in 132 different countries and the Gaza Strip/West Bank. The data are aggregated within each of the six WHO regions. GYTS data indicate that nearly two of every 10 students reported currently using a tobacco product, with no statistically significant difference between the proportion of those reporting cigarette smoking (8.9%) and other tobacco use (11.2%). Use of tobacco by adolescents is a major public health problem in all six WHO regions. Worldwide, more countries need to develop, implement, and evaluate their tobacco-control programs to address the use of all types of tobacco products, especially among girls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207