MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113399919

Awareness and perception of electronic cigarettes / Khadijah Ahmad

2015· other· en· W7113399919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUiTM Institutional Repositories (Universiti Teknologi MARA) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic cigarettePerceptionQuarter (Canadian coin)Product (mathematics)Electronic bookElectronic data
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic cigarettes also known as e-cigarettes were first invented by the Chinese Pharmacist's Hon Lik in early 2000s. It has been claimed as an alternative for tobacco product since it is marketed as tobacco-free product, which mimic the characters of tobacco cigarettes. Basically, electronic cigarettes consist of power source, an atomizer which act as heating element that vaporized the solution, the solution also known as e-liquid. Usage of electronic cigarettes is increasing over time. At the moment data on awareness and perception of electronic cigarettes is still limited. The perception of the pharmacist's role in smoking cessation and disseminating information on electronic cigarettes is still not known.The aim of this study is to determine the awareness and perception of electronic cigarettes and to investigate the perception of the public on the pharmacist's role in smoking cessation.A surveyed was conducted in Batu Pahat Johor which consisted of 69 respondents. The instrument consist of four-parts self-administered 39 items questionnaire consisted of demographic, usage of conventional and electronic cigarettes, awareness and perception of electronic cigarettes and pharmacist' role in smoking cessation. The respondents were given 20 minutes to answer the survey. The result were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0. Majority of the respondents were male (76.8%), ranging from 20-30 years old (44.9%) with SPM as the highest level of education (36.2%). 52.5 % of respondents were conventional cigarette users and only 13 % from them used electronic cigarettes. The respondents, (95.9%) were aware of electronic cigarettes. Three quarter (75.4%) of the respondents do not believe electronic cigarettes can be used as a smoking cessation tool and almost a quarter (23.2%) believe it can be use as smoking cessation tool. Almost half (43.5%) of the respondents believe electronic cigarette is as safe as conventional cigarette and a slightly higher percentage (49.3%) considered electronic cigarettes and conventional cigarettes are both harmful. Majority of the respondents agreed or strongly agree that pharmacist can advice you on smoking cessation (82.6%) and on safety and efficacy of electronic cigarettes (81.2%). Respondents also agree or strongly agree that pharmacist can provide smoking cessation counseling (86.9%) and smoking cessation medication (79.7%). Based on the result from this study, most of the respondents were aware of electronic cigarettes and have different perception towards electronic cigarettes. It was found that, majority of the respondents agreed that pharmacist play a role in smoking cessation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUiTM Institutional Repositories (Universiti Teknologi MARA)French-language works237,207