MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1481142759 · doi:10.1515/fhep-2013-0019

Retail Tobacco Display Bans

2014· article· en· W1481142759 on OpenAlex
Ian Irvine, Van Hai Nguyen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueForum for Health Economics & Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvertisingIdeal (ethics)Tobacco usePoint of saleMarketingBusinessEnvironmental healthEconomicsPolitical scienceMedicineLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bans on retail tobacco displays, of the type proposed by New York's Mayor Bloomberg in March 2013, have been operative in several economies since 2001. Despite an enormous number of studies in public health journals using attitudinal data, we can find no econometric event studies of the type normally used in Economics. This paper attempts to fill that gap by using data from 13 cross sections of the annual Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Surveys. These data afford an ideal opportunity to study events of this type given that each of Canada's 10 provinces implemented display bans at various points between 2003 and 2009. Accordingly, we use difference-in-difference methods to study three behaviors following the introduction of bans: participation in smoking, the intensity of smoking and quit intentions. A critical element of the study concerns the treatment of contraband tobacco. Our estimates provide very little support for the hypothesis that behaviors changed following the bans.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.313 · 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