MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992285269 · doi:10.1080/15245000601163499

Quit and Win Contests: A Social Marketing Success Story

2007· article· en· W1992285269 on OpenAlex
Anne M. Lavack, Lisa Watson, Julie Markwart

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Marketing Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial marketingIncentiveMarketingPublic relationsSmoking cessationQuit smokingWork (physics)BusinessPolitical scienceMedicineEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quit and Win contests are social marketing campaigns that have met with great success in achieving smoking cessation. They have been organized in over 80 countries around the world, have had over 2 million smokers participate, and have helped an estimated 150,000 smokers quit. Quit and Win contests work by offering prize incentives and a supportive environment to smokers who wish to quit smoking. This article examines the structural components of Quit and Win programs that make them successful social marketing campaigns, along with the measures used to determine their success. Recommendations are provided for increasing the success of Quit and Win programs in the future. This review also provides useful lessons for the development of other types of social marketing campaigns.

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)0.007
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.285 · 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