Notice bibliographique
Résumé
When I began working at Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in 2000, I was given a very broad mandate: do everything you can to support this tobacco treaty.The ASH Board had the foresight to recognize and understand the global significance of what would become the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the FCTC, and decided to fully stand behind the development of the first global health treaty.At that time, tobacco was advertised everywhere, no country had comprehensive smoke-free policies, not a single country had pictorial health warnings, and plain packaging was barely a consideration.Many thought the concept of smoke-free bars and restaurants was going too far.The FCTC was a game-changer in global health: it provided a clear path for countries on what to do to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use.ASH strengthened the participation of civil society in the tobacco treaty process by supporting the Framework Convention Alliance (FCA) 1 , now the Global Alliance for Tobacco Control (GATC) 2 , an alliance of non-governmental organizations that was a powerful voice and had a tremendous impact on the FCTC process.ASH served as the secretariat of the FCA for seventeen years, and I had the privilege to serve as its first director 3 .Through the years, the FCA was able to form a coalition of more than 500 public health, human rights, consumer rights, women's and children's rights organizations and environmental activists from over 100 countries, rallying to support the development of the strongest, evidence-based, and most effective FCTC 3 .'I had the privilege to work closely with the FCA through the development of the FCTC and to witness firsthand the expertise they bring to the process of negotiating and adopting complex policy.The importance of having non-government and government agencies work together cannot be underestimated, and FCA understands very well how to influence governments to create the best possible policies', said Tábare Vázquez, President of Uruguay (2005-2010) 4 .Working with a coalition of supportive countries, including India, Thailand, Canada, New Zealand, the island nations of the Pacific and Caribbean, and the entire continent of Africa, the FCA was able to thwart the desires of tobacco producing governments that sought a weak and non-binding treaty during the FCTC negotiations.In just a few years, from the beginning of the treaty negotiations to its adoption in 2003, the FCA grew tremendously in size and influence and had a very significant impact not only on the final text of the FCTC but also its rapid entry into force and later development of Guidelines and the Illicit Trade Protocol 3 .FCA members participated in all negotiating sessions of the FCTC, working collaboratively with governments, the WHO, and other UN entities.FCA provided educational materials, hosted delegates' briefings, wrote a daily newsletter during
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,022 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,032 | 0,027 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,026 | 0,043 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,059 | 0,028 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».