MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2106542342 · doi:10.3138/cpp.33.4.477

Tobacco Warning Labels and the Protection Motivation Model: Implications for Canadian Tobacco Control Policy

2007· article· en· W2106542342 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Magdalena Cismaru, Anne M. Lavack

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobacco controlContext (archaeology)Coping (psychology)Smoking preventionPsychologySmoking cessationMedicineClinical psychologyGeographyPublic healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2000, Canada has mandated the use of a set of 16 rotating graphic warning labels that cover the top 50 percent of the front and back of each cigarette package. This paper examines the issue of tobacco warning labels within the context of the Protection Motivation Model. Based on this psychological model, we provide recommendations as to how tobacco warning labels could be revised to include specific recommendations and coping advice that would outline the benefits of quitting (response efficacy) and offer encouragement (self-efficacy).

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public Policy→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→