Why Do Some Adults Who are Smoking Perceive E-cigarettes to be More Harmful than Combustible Cigarettes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Whilst e-cigarettes have been characterised by respected public health bodies as being substantially less harmful than combustible tobacco products, nevertheless research has shown that a significant minority of adults, including those who are smoking, perceive e-cigarettes to be as harmful or more harmful than combustible cigarettes. In this paper we draw upon qualitative data from interviews with U.K. adults who are smoking to look at the reasons why e-cigarettes may be viewed as more harmful than combustible cigarettes. The belief that e-cigarettes may be more harmful than combustible cigarettes was based on a complex array of knowledge, belief, reasons, fears, predictions, reactions, and judgements covering such topics as the technological i.e. non-natural nature of e-cigarettes, uncertainties as to the content of e-liquids, perceptions that these devices expose the user to greater harm resulting from their being used with greater frequency than combustible tobacco products, fear around long-term harm of e-cigarettes, scare stories in the media and concerns around addiction. There is an important need for clear communication from responsible public health bodies and the media conveying the important information to those adults who are continuing to smoke that e-cigarettes are substantially less harmful than combustible tobacco products, and that those adults who are unable or unwilling to quit smoking using validated means of smoking cessation should consider switching to e-cigarettes or other non-combustible tobacco products as a way of reducing the harms they are being exposed to as a result of continuing to smoke.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".