MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417271237 · doi:10.3390/soc15120348

Critical Interventions, Real Conversations: Discursive Design for Culturally Tailored Smoking Cessation

2025· article· en· W4417271237 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Proulx, Joanne G. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueSocieties · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersOhio State University
KeywordsProblematizationPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)ConversationDiscursive psychologyContext (archaeology)Smoking cessationPublic healthDiscourse analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exploratory study examines how discursive design—using provocative, speculative artifacts to spark reflection and discussion—might expand public health experts’ problematization of approaches to tailoring and targeting interventions. Cultural tailoring and targeting (CTT) refers to adapting interventions for specific sociocultural populations. Because LGBTQ+ communities experience disproportionately high rates of tobacco use, this study applies discursive intervention concepts within this context to explore how they might help experts critically engage with CTT strategies for reaching LGBTQ+ populations more effectively. To investigate this, two pairs of discursive intervention concepts were designed and presented to three focus groups of public health experts. Each pair juxtaposed a conventional intervention approach with a more provocative, unfamiliar one—for example, deepfake-driven behavior disruption. The goal was to document the type of conversation discursive design could stimulate around CTT considerations and generate insights relevant to the value of design methodologies to foster new ways to problematize public health matters. Findings indicate that the concepts prompted critical conversations about CTT, although the depth and focus of engagement varied. Those with greater expertise in LGBTQ+ issues engaged more with CTT mechanisms and implications, while others focused on implementation and feasibility concerns—essential to intervention development but outside the study’s focus. These patterns highlight who should be included in such efforts and how they should be engaged from a facilitation perspective, raising important considerations for methodological refinements and future research. Overall, this initial exploration aims to uncover the potential of discursive design to deepen understanding of CTT interventions and inform more responsive, innovative approaches to addressing tobacco use among priority populations.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.551
GPT teacher head0.671
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocietiesSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207