Reactions to graphic health warnings in the United States
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports consumer reactions to the graphic health warnings selected by the Food and Drug Administration to be placed on cigarette packs in the United States. We recruited three sets of respondents for an experimental study from a national opt-in e-mail list sample: (i) current smokers aged 25 or older, (ii) young adult smokers aged 18-24 and (iii) youth aged 13-17 who are current smokers or who may be susceptible to initiation of smoking. Participants were randomly assigned to be exposed to a pack of cigarettes with one of nine graphic health warnings or with a text-only warning statement. All three age groups had overall strong negative emotional (ß = 4.7, P < 0.001 for adults; ß = 4.6, P < 0.001 for young adults and ß = 4.0, P < 0.001 for youth) and cognitive (ß = 2.4, P < 0.001 for adults; ß = 3.0, P < 0.001 for young adults and ß = 4.6, P < 0.001 for youth) reactions to the proposed labels. The strong negative emotional and cognitive reactions following a single exposure to the graphic health warnings suggest that, with repeated exposures over time, graphic health warnings may influence smokers' beliefs, intentions and behaviors.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it