Litigation on behalf of victims of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: The experience from the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For a quarter of a century, lawsuits have been filed on behalf of individuals who have been harmed by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). METHODS: A review of hundreds of legal cases where exposure to ETS was the basis for the lawsuit was undertaken. The history of ETS-based lawsuits was categorised and analysed. RESULTS: While ETS-based lawsuits have arisen in a variety of divergent settings, there have been an increasing number of instances in which individuals have achieved relief from exposure to ETS and/or monetary compensation for having been so exposed. Such successful outcomes make it easier for others to achieve similar results through litigation. CONCLUSION: Lawsuits will probably continue to be a viable remedy in assisting those being harmed by exposure to ETS, both-inside and outside the USA.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".