MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7053008214

Study of the social factors contributing to youth smoking in an Inuit community / by Michelle, Doucette.

2017· dissertation· en· W7053008214 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupTobacco usePopulationYouth smokingCommunity healthPublic healthReading (process)Smoking cessation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inuit people in the Canadian Arctic have the highest rates of tobacco use of any population in Canada. On average, 70% of Inuit people use tobacco (Godel, 2006; Health Canada, 2005b; Ritchie & Reading 2003). This study investigated tobacco use among Inuit youth. Using a mixed methodology the researcher facilitated the input of a community focus group to direct the study and provide input into the editing of the survey instrument. The focus group adapted a previously existing survey from a study done with Aboriginal youth to make it appropriate for an exclusively Inuit population. The survey questioned the social influences that encouraged youth to begin smoking or to abstain from tobacco use. The study found significant statistical relationships between smoking caregivers and youth smoking as well as low self-reported health status and smoking. The study also found that youth who had a boyfriend or girlfriend had a statistically significant chance of not being a smoker. The results suggest that personal relationships are the most important predictors of smoking status for
\nInuit youth.
\nThe author suggests that future research needs to consider the importance of personal relationships in investigating reasons for smoking and in planning health education and tobacco cessation programs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)Same topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207