The association between race-based bullying and nicotine vaping in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Racialized youth face a higher risk of bullying victimization due to discriminatory bias which can lead to adverse health conditions and increased substance use. This study aimed to examine whether bullying victimization is associated with nicotine vaping, and whether race-based bullying was associated with greater odds of nicotine vaping than other forms of bullying. Cross-sectional survey data were used from the COMPASS study collected during the 2022–2023 school year from 14,480 students attending secondary schools in Ontario, Canada. Associations between any bullying victimization (in the last 30 days) and nicotine vaping (≥2 times in the last 30 days), and then among bullied students, between race-based bullying and vaping, were explored using random intercept logistic regression models. One third (33.4 %) of students who reported race-based bullying engaged in vaping, in comparison to 29.4 % of students who were bullied for other reasons and 15.6 % of nonbullied students. Students who experienced bullying had higher odds (AOR 2.25, 95 % CI [2.03–2.50]) of vaping relative to nonbullied students. Among students who experienced bullying, there was no statistical difference in the odds of vaping between those who reported being bullied due to racial or cultural reasons and their peers who reported being bullied for reasons other than their race or culture (1.16, 95 % CI [0.81–1.67]). Results suggest that while bullying is strongly associated with vaping among adolescents, being bullied for reasons such as race, culture, or ethnicity does not significantly alter the likelihood of vaping behaviour relative to other forms of bullying. • This is the first Canadian study to examine nicotine vaping in relation to reported experiences of race-based bullying. • Any bullying victimization was associated with higher odds of nicotine vaping in adolescents. • Students that experienced race-based bullying had the highest frequency of nicotine vape use. • Multiethnic and another ethnicity adolescents were more likely to vape and be bullied. • Vaping odds did not differ based on race-based bullying relative to other bullying.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".