An examination of the social perceptions and vaping preferences of young electronic nicotine delivery system users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little research has been conducted on social aspects and preferences of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) use among young ENDS users, and none have examined differences in these aspects and preferences by gender and tobacco use status. Methods: A total of 558 young regular vapers (ages 16-24; vaped at least once a week for the last 3 months) from Nova Scotia were recruited to complete a demographic and vaping questionnaire. A 2 x 3 study design was used to compare participants on social aspects and vaping preferences based on gender (male or female) and tobacco use status (never, former, or current smoker). Chi-square tests were used to determine significant differences, and Bonferroni tests were used to assess over- and under-representation within significant variables. Results: Current tobacco-using male vapers had a higher frequency of experiencing pressure to vape from friends and current employment as compared to females. Former and never tobacco-using male vapers had a higher frequency of parental awareness of their vaping behavior than females. Former tobacco-using female vapers had a higher frequency of being influenced to vape by others they know on social media than males. Both never and former tobacco-using females reported a higher frequency of exposure to vaping content on social media than males. Never tobacco-using female vapers preferred vape pen devices relative to males. Conclusions: Important gender differences by tobacco use status exist and demonstrate differential patterns of social influence for ENDS use and their experiences within this demographic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".