Nicotine and Nicotine-Free Vaping Behavior among a Sample of Canadian High School Students: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth vaping is a public health concern in Canada. Researchers have explored factors associated with vape use, but rarely differentiated between types of use. This study estimates the prevalence and correlations among past-month nicotine vaping, nicotine-free vaping, and dual-use vaping (nicotine and nicotine-free) in grades 9-12 high school students. Data came from the 2019 Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey (CSTADS). The total sample consisted of 38,229 students. We used multinomial regression to assess for the correlations among different categories of vape use. Approximately 12% of the students reported past-month vape use exclusively with nicotine, 2.8% reported exclusively nicotine-free vape use, and 14% reported both nicotine vaping and nicotine-free vaping. Substance use (smoking, alcohol, cannabis) and being male were associated with membership in every category of vape use. Age was associated with vape use, but in different directions. Grade 10 and 11 students were more likely than grade 9 students to vape exclusively with nicotine (aOR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.77 and aOR 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.97), while grade 9 students were more likely than grade 11 and 12 students to vape with both nicotine and nicotine-free vapes (aOR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.99 and aOR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.64). The prevalence of nicotine and nicotine-free vaping is high, with many students reporting the use of both.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".