MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283383029 · doi:10.5772/intechopen.104904

The Electronic Cigarette Use in Canada – Local and Global Considerations

2022· book-chapter· en· W4283383029 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rudra Dahal

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable development · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNicotineAddictionEnvironmental healthElectronic cigaretteMedicineNicotine AddictionSAFERCuriositySmoking cessationPsychiatryPsychologyComputer securitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its invention in 2003, electronic cigarettes’ (EC) users have been growing worldwide. ECs were first introduced in the market in Canada in 2004, and they remained illegal until 2018. ECs were initially marketed as a safer and cleaner alternative for the traditional combustible smoking and smoking cessation measures. Statistics show that EC use prevalence is the highest among the youths (15–19) and adolescents (20–24) years of age. EC has to promote cessation as it supplies nicotine to smokers prevent nicotine withdrawal syndrome and reduce motivation to continue smoking. EC use becomes a gateway to tobacco use and nicotine addiction. Nicotine exposure to youth and adolescents can damage the developing brain. EC use is also associated with an increased heart attack rate and other health problems. There are various reasons for using ECs, such as curiosity, quitting combustible smoking, or cutting down the number of cigarette use. Many people start ECs use before the age of 19 years. Majority of vapers like fruit flavor. Dual combustible cigarette smoking and EC use is a burning issue globally, including in Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable developmentSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207