MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385476502 · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00055

Public health interventions to prevent adolescent vaping: a scoping review protocol

2023· review· en· W4385476502 on OpenAlexaff
Jamie DiCasmirro, Joan Tranmer, Colleen Davison, Kevin Woo, Amanda Ross‐White, M. Hubeny, Catherine Goldie

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityQueen's UniversityCentre for Excellence in Mining Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOPsychological interventionMEDLINEPublic healthMedicineSystematic reviewInclusion (mineral)Family medicineMedical educationPsychologyNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the review is to systematically examine the emerging literature related to public health interventions aimed at preventing adolescent vaping. INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of vaping among adolescents is a rising concern worldwide. A thorough investigation of existing public health interventions to prevent vaping among adolescents is imperative to reduce serious and avoidable vaping-related health risks for this cohort. Many vaping-prevention interventions have been described in the literature, but their key components and outcomes have not been summarized. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All English literature related to public health interventions preventing adolescent (aged 10 to 18 years) vaping from all countries will be included. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search of academic and gray literature using MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), PubMed, PsycINFO (Ovid), ProQuest (Health and Medicine and Sociology Collections), and Web of Science Core Collection will be performed. Articles will be screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Results will be extracted using customized tools and summarized in a final report using narrative synthesis and presented in table format.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.312
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicDoping in SportsFrench-language works237,207