MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1930374636 · doi:10.1080/02255189.2006.9669154

<i>The 2005 Kari Polanyi Levitt Prize-Winning Essay</i> Science, Politics, and Tobacco in the Developing World

2006· article· fr· W1930374636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brodie Ramin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développement · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobacco controlMainstreamPoliticsPolitical scienceControl (management)Public policyFace (sociological concept)Consumption (sociology)Public healthSociologyEconomicsSocial scienceManagementMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1950 and 1992 the World Bank lent extensively to tobacco farmers and made no attempt to implement tobacco control measures in developing countries. Since 1992, in direct contrast to its earlier policies, the World Bank has been at the forefront of producing and supporting tobacco control knowledge. How did this volte-face on tobacco control policy occur? This paper addresses the question of how tobacco control has become, and to a large extent is still becoming, a mainstream international development issue. The paper interprets the tobacco control story using a theoretical approach that unites the production of new knowledge and public action. Focusing predominantly on changes in public health policies, the paper specifically argues that knowledge is the raw material upon which agents act to create public policy and that, over time, that knowledge is moulded into policy by NGOs, private firms, states, and international organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développement→Same topicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→