Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite growing interest in the dynamics and influences of activist groups, few studies have examined the specific tactics used by activists to achieve legitimacy and how these actions affect target firms or industries. This article studies the history and current state of the battle between tobacco control groups and Big Tobacco in search of evidence for their use of framing—a process of generating shared meaning and purpose through the creation of overarching messages—as a vehicle for carrying out their mission, achieving legitimacy, and thwarting the efforts of adversaries. The authors propose that both sides marshal specific core frames in service of broader master frames, namely the projection of honesty and trustworthiness for the tobacco industry, countered by public health's master frame of distrust of the industry. The evolution of this battle may also be understood within the framework of a two-factor model of trust and distrust; the authors assert that the relationship between tobacco control and the industry will likely continue as one of low trust/high distrust, in part because the master frame of distrust has served multiple purposes for public health activists, including the establishment of greater legitimacy with the public and, by proxy, with the target industry. Several specific conclusions are drawn regarding the functions of distrust and the relationship between framing, trust, and legitimacy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".