Perceptions of cigarette smoking and vaping among 2SLGBTQI+young adults in Ontario and Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian young adults who identify as Two Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex (2SLGBTQI+) have higher smoking rates compared to their straight cisgender counterparts. One of the reasons for this trend is the perceived social acceptability of smoking and how it relates to stress, mental health and social connections. A sequential mixed-methods study was conducted with qualitative focus groups, followed by quantitative survey data collection starting in the spring of 2020, examining perceptions of both smoking and vaping. Results demonstrate higher social acceptability of vaping compared to smoking in the study sample. Qualitative results showed a strong link between the higher acceptability of smoking and vaping with coping and social connections. Quantitative results indicated that higher smoking acceptability was more common among those who currently smoke, currently vape, are younger, live in smaller cities, identify as a person of color, with variation by gender and sexual orientation; vaping was found to be more acceptable among those who currently smoke, currently vape, were younger participants, and have some post-secondary education. This research is important for the development of prevention and cessation programs in addressing both the negative and positive dimensions affecting smoking among 2SLGBTQI+young adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".