Building the evidence base for effective tobacco control policies: the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (the ITC Project): Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is a seminal event in tobacco control and in global health. Scientific evidence guided the creation of the FCTC, and as the treaty moves into its implementation phase, scientific evidence can be used to guide the formulation of evidence-based tobacco control policies. The International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) is a transdisciplinary international collaboration of tobacco control researchers who have created research studies to evaluate and understand the psychosocial and behavioural impact of FCTC policies as they are implemented in participating ITC countries, which together are inhabited by over 45% of the world's smokers. This introduction to the ITC Project supplement of Tobacco Control presents a brief outline of the ITC Project, including a summary of key findings to date. The overall conceptual model and methodology of the ITC Project--involving representative national cohort surveys created from a common conceptual model, with common methods and measures across countries--may hold promise as a useful paradigm in efforts to evaluate and understand the impact of population-based interventions in other important domains of health, such as obesity.
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 | 0.210 | 0.270 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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.
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".