Are excluding e-cigarettes a loophole in the smokefree public housing rule?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) required all Public Housing Authorities to become smokefree in July 2018, following an 18-month implementation period that began February 2017. The HUD rule included all combustible tobacco products; e-cigarettes were not included. This purpose of this study is to characterize e-cigarette use overall and initiation after the implementation of the smokefree rule among tobacco users living in public housing. Data were collected from 396 adult (18+ years) current tobacco users at the time of rule implementation residing in the District of Columbia Housing Authority between July 2018 and November 2021. Measures include e-cigarette use, age of initiation, reasons for e-cigarette use, e-cigarette use susceptibility (among non-users), and sociodemographic characteristics. Descriptive and crosstab statistics were calculated to characterize e-cigarette use. Nearly-one-quarter of tobacco users reported lifetime use of e-cigarettes (24 %, n = 95) and 4.8 % (n = 19) indicated past 30-day e-cigarette use. Of the lifetime users, twenty-two (23.2 %) initiated their use after the smoke-free rule went into effect, with only two of those residents indicating they did so because of the rule. Of those who never used an e-cigarette, 23.5 % (n = 70) indicated being curious about e-cigarettes and 10.7 % (n = 40) said they may use e-cigarettes in the next year. Results indicate low use of e-cigarette products and low uptake due to the rule. Few tobacco users who never used e-cigarettes indicated intentions to use. Results suggest that omitting e-cigarettes from the HUD rule has not led to significant use of these products in this sample.
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 | 0.014 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".