Changes in the Patterns and Characteristics of Youth ENDS Use over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on youth use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has explored the correlates of initiation and use; however, little is known about the factors that predict continued youth use of ENDS. We used an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) burst design to explore both daily variability within adolescents over a two-week observation period and variability over time two years later (2018 and 2020). The contribution of device characteristics, motivations for use, contextual factors, and community factors to daily use occasions were explored. Youth participants (n = 35) at the start of the study were past two-week nicotine vapers, 14 to 17 years old, who resided within 100 miles of Louisville, KY, and reported past two-week ENDS use. Close to a quarter of participants ceased all tobacco use two years later, suggesting that some youth, despite prior regular vaping habits, may have only been experimenting with ENDS. The regular continued use of ENDS was predicted by trying to quit using cigarettes, appealing flavors, and being in locations where cigarette use was prohibited. Except for flavors, these factors did not affect ENDS use in year one. These findings suggest that tobacco policy might target ENDS use by prohibiting all tobacco use, including ENDS, in locations where smoking is already banned.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".