MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103377146 · doi:10.2190/hs.38.3.f

Public Policy Implications of Tobacco Industry Smuggling through Native American Reservations into Canada

2008· article· en· W2103377146 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Max H. Kelton, Michael S. Givel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Services · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstitutePan American Health Organization
KeywordsTobacco industryGovernment (linguistics)BusinessArgument (complex analysis)SovereigntyPublic policyState (computer science)Political scienceInternational tradeLawPoliticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1980 to 1994, the Canadian government enacted major tax increases on tobacco products. These actions initiated significant tobacco smuggling from the United States into Canada through a few U.S. Native American reservations to undercut the price of Canadian tobacco products. The tobacco industry blamed rampant smuggling on excessive taxation; however, research shows that the tobacco industry had actually promoted smuggling schemes to both increase profits and provide an argument for tobacco taxation reduction. Although the smuggling has resulted in numerous U.S. and Canadian criminal convictions of tobacco industry officials and partners, significant smuggling continues throughout the world. For the few Native Americans involved, the smuggling was lucrative and they were able to avoid criminal prosecution through tribal sovereignty. Industry-supported tobacco smuggling has had a profoundly negative effect on Canadian public health that must be brought to light to prevent future similar occurrences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health ServicesSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207