MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W569027681

Modelès socio-écologiques : renforcement de la recherche interventionnelle dans le contrôle du tabac. [Sociological Models: Strengthening intervention research in tobacco control]

2007· article· fr· W569027681 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anita Kothari, Nancy Edwards, Sharon Yanicki, Patrician Hansen-Ketchum, Margaret Ann Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of OntarioCanadian Health Services Research Foundation
KeywordsSociologyHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some aspects of the tobacco control field have been informed by a broader conceptualization of the complex factors that determine population health. Tobacco control programs increasingly include multi-level interventions and policy changes to influence context. Further, socioecological concepts (e.g., strategies targeting intrapersonal, interpersonal and socioenvironmental interactions) are implicit in many comprehensive tobacco reduction policies. In contrast, tobacco intervention research lags behind this progression, with individual level strategies continuing to dominate the research agenda. New research methods are suggested to strengthen intervention research in tobacco prevention and cessation. Developmental transitions are briefly explored to consider the impact of developmental vulnerability and resiliency on youth tobacco use, providing an expanded focus and new opportunities for intervention research.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.691
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207