Regional differences in awareness of tobacco advertising and promotion in China: findings from the ITC China Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether levels of, and factors related to, awareness of tobacco advertising and promotion differ across six cities in China. METHODS: Data from wave 1 of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) China Survey (April to August 2006) were analysed. The ITC China Survey employed a multistage sampling design in Beijing, Shenyang, Shanghai, Changsha, Guangzhou and Yinchuan. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with a total of 4763 smokers and 1259 non-smokers. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with awareness of tobacco advertising and promotion. RESULTS: The overall levels of noticing advertisements varied considerably by city. Cities reporting lower levels of advertising tended to report higher levels of point of sale activity. Noticing tobacco industry promotions was associated with more positive attitudes to tobacco companies. CONCLUSION: The awareness of tobacco advertising and promotional activities was not homogeneous across the six Chinese cities, suggesting variations in the tobacco industry's activities and the diversity of implementing a central set of laws to restrict tobacco promotion. This study clearly demonstrates the need to work with the implementation agencies if national laws are to be properly enforced.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".