Protocol for “Interventions addressing social determinants of tobacco smoking: a systematic review”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This protocol outlines a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature on interventions addressing inequity in tobacco smoking. Tobacco, primarily consumed through cigarettes, contains nicotine, a highly addictive stimulant, and its smoke is linked to poor health outcomes, including cardiovascular diseases, respiratory conditions, and various cancers. In Canada, tobacco smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and illness, responsible for 17% of all deaths and incurring economic costs of $16.2 billion annually. Smoking prevalence is inequitably distributed, disproportionately affecting individuals with mental illnesses, Indigenous populations, and those with lower socioeconomic or educational attainment. This review seeks to address two main questions: whether interventions targeting social determinants of health can influence tobacco smoking habits, and what specific characteristics of these interventions impact cessation outcomes. Insights from this work aim to advance understanding of effective social interventions for reducing tobacco-related disparities.
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 | 0.064 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.387 | 0.045 |
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".