Public opinion about ending the sale of tobacco in Australia: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent success of the Australian Government in defending its plain packaging law in the High Court1 has prompted speculation about what might be a logical next step in tobacco control and several options for limiting accessibility to tobacco products have been debated in the Australian media. These possibilities include the introduction of a smoker licensing scheme,2 restrictions to the types or locations of outlets from which tobacco can be sold3 ,4 and a proposal that any person born since 2000 should be banned from buying tobacco products.3 Limited public opinion data on the phasing out of tobacco sales exist. In 2003, 56% of adults in Ontario, Canada, agreed that ‘cigarettes are too dangerous to be sold at all’5 and in 2004, 57% of adults from New South Wales, Australia, supported a ban on tobacco sales within 10 years.6 Among New Zealand smokers in 2008 and 2009,7 46% agreed that ‘if effective nicotine substitutes that are not smoked become available, the government should then set a date to ban cigarette sales in 10 years’ time’. Fewer New Zealand smokers …
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".