MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7009860096

FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON BILL C-71, THE TOBACCO ACT: EXAMINING WRITTEN AND ORAL STATEMENTS OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS

2009· article· en· W7009860096 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTobacco industryTobacco controlLegislationGovernment (linguistics)StakeholderSupreme courtPromotion (chess)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction. This case study examined the tobacco industry as a stakeholder during the\nparliamentary hearings on a 1997 keystone piece of Canadian tobacco legislation—Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act—regulating the sale, manufacture, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco products. A significant amount of public participation was present in the hearings, in which the tobacco industry stakeholders (e.g., growers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers, allied manufacturing industries, and sponsored sport and cultural events organizers) provided more than half of all written and oral submissions to government.\nBackground. The government introduced Bill C-71 after the 1995 Supreme Court of Canada sided with the tobacco industry in a decision to strike down the standing tobacco control legislation. Purpose. This study undertook the examination of the explicit and implicit meanings of statements within tobacco industry submissions to the Canadian government in order to understand how the tobacco industry attempted to influence tobacco control legislation during the policy development of Bill C-71. The research questions asked: 1) How were issues related to smoking and tobacco discussed in the texts?; and 2) What discursive tactics were used by the tobacco industry stakeholders to justify their positions? Methods. 77 tobacco industry oral and written submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs were analysed using interpretive discourse analysis. The first level of analysis used a tool that drew on Potter & Wetherell (1994) and Rudman (2003). Foci\nwere placed on how tactics were used within the texts to create roles, shape and forefront\nm\nparticular identities, arguments against opposition, problems and solutions. The second level of analysis drew on the first level to examine the discursive tactics employed by tobacco industry stakeholders. The approach to analysis and interpretation o f discursive tactics involved detailed reading of texts as well as linking texts with broader contextual features, particularly sociopolitical and economic contextual factors (e.g., neoliberal economic policies, illegal market surge, judicial strike down of past legislation, and national cultural divide between Anglophone and Francophone populations).\nFindings. Six categories of discursive tactics were constructed through interaction with texts: 1) presentation of self (e.g., community-involved\nvictim); 2) undermining government efforts (e.g., harm-causing, counter Canadian tradition, totalitarian); 3) tactical use of evidence (manipulation of counter evidence, presenting misleading studies); 4) use of intentional discourse types (legal, constitution and democracy-based); 5) evasion of health discourse (e.g., superficial support for health objectives, denying links to tobacco industry); and 6) increasing economic discourse (framing self as entrepreneur, consumer and market-based solutions).\nConclusions. In this case study, many tactics were used to frame smoking and tobacco, and problems and solutions in ways aligned with neoliberal ideology or rationality, focusing on individual responsibility, freedom in the market place, entrepreneurship and minimizing a government role. Appeals to “reason”, “justice”, and “democracy” were made by all tobacco industry stakeholders to liken Bill C-71 to its predecessor and undermine government’s overall health objectives and specific regulations. Tobacco industry stakeholders portrayed government as the root of the problem of tobacco consumption and negative economic situation, thereby deflecting responsibility from\nIV\nthemselves and evading health issues. Interestingly, many of these same arguments have been cited in literature since the early 1980s, suggesting that tactics are re-used and specific argument content is shaped by the context. Findings may assist health promoters identify and prepare for future opposition from the tobacco industry.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,071
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,213
Tête enseignante GPT0,342
Écart entre enseignants0,129 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScholarship@Western (Western University)Même sujetDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesTravaux en français237 207