Tobacco control: comparative politics in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By D T Studlar, Broadview Press, 2002, US$19.95, CDN$29.95, £14.99, ISBN: 1-55111-456-9. Although tobacco control is a multidisciplinary field, it is one that is practised by considerably fewer political scientists than health practitioners, lawyers or economists. For that reason alone, Donley Studlar’s examination of the development of tobacco control measures in the USA and Canada is a noteworthy contribution. There are many reasons other than novelty to read and reflect upon this political scientist’s analysis of how similar-but-different nations with similar-but-different constraints adopted similar-but-different public measures and achieved similar-but-different results. In analysing the flow of policies north and south across the border, this study provides useful explanations for why some ideas are more readily received than others. Professor Studlar thoughtfully presents major differences in US and Canadian political systems, cultures and institutions that …
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".