The (De)normalisation of Smoking Among Apprentices: Plurality of Settings, Norms and Vulnerability Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When it comes to smoking, apprentices are considered a 'vulnerable' population. They have been the subject of targeted approaches based on the assumption of common characteristics. In contrast to most public health studies, that assume homogeneity of vulnerable groups, this article, based on Lahire's 'theory of the plural individual', aims to examine inter- and intra-individual variability in relation to tobacco exposure. It is based on a secondary analysis of 30 interviews with apprentices in France on the stigma attached to their use in their different living environments. Our study confirms that the family and the Centre de Formation des Apprentis, as a whole, encourage smoking. It also provides a better understanding of the mechanisms by which inequalities are perpetuated (permissive rules, loans and gifts of cigarettes, spillover effects, lack of incentives to quit). Nevertheless, it allows us to observe that, in some families and in some companies, smoking is denormalised, even stigmatised. Several apprentice profiles emerge: those who are protected from tobacco and seem to be able to quit easily; those who are permanently confronted with it and for whom it is difficult to consider quitting or reducing; and those who are confronted with a plurality of norms, who seem ambivalent and whose consumption varies significantly. These results will allow us to adapt the interventions according to the profile of the apprentices and by including their entourage. In particular, it will be necessary to propose a 'go-to' approach that goes beyond the school setting and involves the family and the workplace.
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 | 0.105 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".