MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010947001 · doi:10.1177/009145091304000106

Where There's Smoke There's Fire: Outdoor Smoking Bans and Claims to Public Space

2013· article· en· W2010947001 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Drug Problems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationDowntownDe factoContext (archaeology)Space (punctuation)Tobacco controlPrivate spacePolitical scienceLawEnvironmental healthPublic healthGeographyMedicineArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian city of Vancouver was very early to introduce extensive smokefree legislation. Smoking has been banned in all indoor locations for well over a decade and tobacco control advocates have also recently begun to push for the expansion of such legislation into outdoor spaces in the city. Drawing on a 6-month period of observation of smokers and “not-smokers” on their lunch breaks at office sites in downtown Vancouver, I examine the ways that smokers engage with outdoor public space. I show that while smokers continue to make material claims to such space, these claims have become increasingly tenuous. I argue that tobacco “denormalization” strategies provide essential context for understanding outdoor smoking bans and raise ethical questions about the form of de-facto prohibition they appear to encourage.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.226 · 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