Using Search Query Surveillance to Monitor Tax Avoidance and Smoking Cessation following the United States' 2009 “SCHIP” Cigarette Tax Increase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smokers can use the web to continue or quit their habit. Online vendors sell reduced or tax-free cigarettes lowering smoking costs, while health advocates use the web to promote cessation. We examined how smokers' tax avoidance and smoking cessation Internet search queries were motivated by the United States' (US) 2009 State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) federal cigarette excise tax increase and two other state specific tax increases. Google keyword searches among residents in a taxed geography (US or US state) were compared to an untaxed geography (Canada) for two years around each tax increase. Search data were normalized to a relative search volume (RSV) scale, where the highest search proportion was labeled 100 with lesser proportions scaled by how they relatively compared to the highest proportion. Changes in RSV were estimated by comparing means during and after the tax increase to means before the tax increase, across taxed and untaxed geographies. The SCHIP tax was associated with an 11.8% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 5.7 to 17.9; p<.001) immediate increase in cessation searches; however, searches quickly abated and approximated differences from pre-tax levels in Canada during the months after the tax. Tax avoidance searches increased 27.9% (95%CI, 15.9 to 39.9; p<.001) and 5.3% (95%CI, 3.6 to 7.1; p<.001) during and in the months after the tax compared to Canada, respectively, suggesting avoidance is the more pronounced and durable response. Trends were similar for state-specific tax increases but suggest strong interactive processes across taxes. When the SCHIP tax followed Florida's tax, versus not, it promoted more cessation and avoidance searches. Efforts to combat tax avoidance and increase cessation may be enhanced by using interventions targeted and tailored to smokers' searches. Search query surveillance is a valuable real-time, free and public method, that may be generalized to other behavioral, biological, informational or psychological outcomes manifested online.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".