MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255717299 · doi:10.47339/ephj.2016.100

Electronic cigarettes

2016· article· en· W4255717299 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueBCIT Environmental Public Health Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngine and Fuel Emissions
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
FundersBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
KeywordsNicotineElectronic cigaretteAddictionNull hypothesisSmoking cessationPsychologyMedicineStatisticsMathematicsPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 Background and Purpose: Electronic cigarettes are gaining vast popularity because the perceived impression about electronic cigarettes is they are a safer alternative to conventional smoking (Belluz, 2015). As a result, more teenagers are switching to electronic cigarettes either as a smoking cessation tool, or for recreational use. However, it is supported by the evidence review that there is nicotine mislabeling between what the manufacturer has labeled and the actual nicotine content in the liquids (Goniewicz et al., 2012). This is a critical health concern for teenagers and recreational users because they are exposed to nicotine, which is a neurotoxin that creates the addiction for smoking. As a result, over a period of time, recreational electronic cigarette users have a higher chance of switching to conventional smoking (Bach, 2015). Hence, the purpose of this research is to determine whether nicotine can be found in nicotine free electronic cigarette liquids Methods: The nicotine content in the electronic cigarette liquids will be determined using Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry. Inferential statistics such as a one tailed t-test will be done using Microsoft Excel and SAS to see if nicotine can be detected in nicotine-free electronic cigarette liquids and if there is a statistically significant difference. Results: The two p-values from the parametric test were 0.2811 and 0.2953. The p-value to reject the null hypothesis was set at 0.05. Because the p-values from the inferential statistics were greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis was not rejected and the actual nicotine content is equal to what the manufacturer had labeled as nicotine free. Discussion: Although the inferential statistics indicated that there was no statistical significance in nicotine concentration, two out of the ten nicotine free electronic cigarette liquids measured nicotine levels above 0 ppm. Conclusion: There was not a significant difference in nicotine concentration found in the electronic cigarette liquids and the actual nicotine concentration is equal to the labeled concentration. However, because the sample size of only ten is too small, there is a potential for type 2 error. Also, the samples came from only two manufacturers. Therefore, the results from this research are not representative for all the electronic cigarette liquids. More research should be conducted to provide scientific evidence to stop recreational electronic cigarette users from the exposure of electronic cigarettes as these could act as a stepping-stone towards smoking conventional cigarettes. Teenagers who start smoking at an early age will be more

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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