MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Environmental influences on E-cigarette use among young people: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4392876336 on OpenAlexafffund
Zoe Askwith, Josh Grignon, Mariam R. Ismail, Gina Martin, Louise W. McEachern, Jamie A. Seabrook, Jason Gilliland

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth & Place · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteChildren’s Health Research InstituteAthabasca UniversityWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsNeighbourhood (mathematics)OddsEnvironmental healthYouth smokingNicotineCannabisDemographyAdvertisingPublic healthMedicineTobacco controlBusinessSociologyLogistic regressionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E-cigarettes are a popular mode of delivery for nicotine, tobacco and cannabis. The prevalence of vaping among youth is increasing and this review aims to identify features of the neighbourhood environment, e.g., retailers, advertisements, and policies, that are associated with youth vaping. We included 48 studies. Of these, approximately 40% and 60% reported that presence of e-cigarette retailers, and advertisements, was associated with statistically higher odds of e-cigarette use in youth, respectively. Approximately 30% of studies reported that policies affecting e-cigarette availability were associated with statistically lower odds of vaping. Identifying these influential features of the neighbourhood environment will help formulate appropriate policies to reduce e-cigarette use among youth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.317 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth & PlaceSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207