Tobacco control in Europe: A deadly lack of progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
igarettes are uniquely dangerous, killing half of all those who regularly use them and damaging the health of those who breathe in users’ smoke, particularly children. Just under a third of European adults currently smoke, and smoking has become increasingly associated with poverty, contributing significantly to widening health inequalities across the EU. In 2004, the ASPECT report, a comprehensive review of tobacco use and tobacco control policies in the EU, found that tobacco use caused well over half a million deaths in Europe annually and on top of that constituted a huge economic burden, estimated conservatively at E98-130 billion a year. 1 This review also identified that whilst some European countries were observing declines in tobacco use and mortality, in other countries tobacco use was still increasing, particularly among women. The ASPECT report identified 43 recommendations to combat the epidemic, covering tobacco control policy, interventions and research. Yet to date, few of these recommendations have been implemented, and as a result, future prospects for curbing the smoking epidemic across Europe are currently very bleak. On the optimistic side, in 2003, the world’s first public health treaty, the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) came into force in recognition of the smoking pandemic and the power of the major transnational tobacco companies to push their deadly products. 2 The FCTC sets out supply and demand strategies to reduce tobacco use and has since been ratified by all EU countries (except the Czech Republic) and the European Union. The FCTC represents a unique and historic opportunity to fight the pandemic and collectively reduce the public health burden caused by tobacco and should therefore herald the way to faster progress in reducing smoking. However, the FCTC will only fulfil its potential if it is implemented in the most effective way and there is strong evidence that this is currently not the case. The Tobacco Control Scale (TCS) was developed by Joossens and Raw 3 to monitor the implementation of tobacco control
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 | 0.016 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".