Youth electronic cigarette use in Canada: A growing public health concern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among Canadian youth aged 15-24 years, vaping has sharply increased, with more students trying e-cigarettes (ECs) than traditional tobacco, posing a significant public health concern 1 .Although ECs may offer harm-reduction potential for adults seeking smoking cessation, their increasing uptake among adolescents raises serious risks, including nicotine dependence, mental health challenges, and the potential for later combustible cigarette use.Spatial analysis of all 293 Canadian Census Divisions revealed key findings to inform youth-focused nicotine reduction policy 2 .Population-level surveys such as Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drug Survey and Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drug Survey demonstrate the scale of this issue 3,4 .Nationally representative data show that between 2016-2017 and 2018-2019, EC use nearly doubled among students in grades 7-9, while among students in grades 10-12, approximately 29% reported past 30-day EC use, with daily use widespread among those using highnicotine pod devices 5,6 .In 2020, 14.4% of youth aged 15-19 years reported vaping in the past 30 days, and almost 5% were daily users 7 .These trends closely followed the 2018 legalization of nicotine-containing EC products in Canada, which expanded product availability and diversified flavored options 5 .Evidence indicates that nicotine exposure during adolescence has long-term consequences.Nicotine alters neurocognitive development, emotional regulation, and reward pathways, contributing to impaired concentration, higher impulsivity, and increased susceptibility to addiction 8 .Recent studies in Canada also link EC use with elevated symptoms of depression, anxiety, somatic complaints, and suicidal ideation 9 .Moreover, adolescents who vape have significantly higher odds of initiating combustible cigarette
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".