MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099775194

Seventh Graders ’ Self-Reported Exposure to Cigarette Marketing and Its Relationship to Their Smoking Behaviour

2011· article· en· W7099775194 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Social marketingYouth smokingSmokeCigarette smokingTobacco industryPerception
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. This study examined among youth the extent of their perceived exposure to cigarette marketing and the relationship of their perceptions to their smoking behavior. Methods. Surveys measuring exposure to cigarette advertisements and promotions were completed by 571 seventh graders in San Jose, Calif. Results. Eighty-eight percent of these 13-year-olds reported exposure to cigarette marketing: the majority often saw ads in magazines, on billboards, and at stores and events, and one quarter owned cigarette promotional items. After social influences to smoke were controlled for, exposure to cigarette marketing was related to selfreported smoking behavior. Likelihood of experimenting with smoking was 2.2 times greater among those who owned promotional items and 2.8 times greater among those who had received mail from a tobacco company. Seeing cigarette advertisements in magazines increased this likelihood by 21%, and seeing tobacco marketing in stores increased it by 38%. Conclusions. Youth are daily and widely exposed to tobacco industry marketing efforts; this exposure is related to smoking behavior. More effective regulation is

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→