Tobacco Regulation: Ads pressure Ontario to butt out in retail locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario Tobacco-Free Network (OTN) wants the province to check in-store tobacco marketing by either banning or hiding tobacco products. The OTN network, which includes the Canadian Cancer Society (Ontario division), the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario and the Ontario Lung Association, launched a print and radio campaign and Web site (www.theotn.org) in February. “It's sad that we need such a campaign. Ontario made a promise but is not clearly committed,” says Cynthia Callard, executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. In April, the Ontario legislature began debating Bill 164, which would ban countertop displays. Tobacco advertising and sponsorship were banned in Canada in October 2003. That same year, the tobacco industry spent over $88 million on retail displays and incentives. Tobacco companies have increased their contribution to retailers for the promotion of tobacco products by 50% over the past 3 years; retailers now receive an average of $880 annually. This increase is due to the fact that retail outlets are one of the last venues in which tobacco companies can promote their product, says Chirstina Dona, spokesperson for Imperial Tobacco Canada. She argues that these displays do not influence people to smoke, but rather influence which brand they choose. Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nunavut have adopted the so-called “shower curtain” law (CMAJ 2005;172[5]:624), which restrict tobacco displays in various ways at stores that are accessible to children. Similar measures have been considered in Australia, Ireland and the UK. — Christine Chene, Ottawa Figure. Part of the Ontario Tobacco-Free Network's campaign. Photo by: Ontario Tobacco-Free Network
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".