MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150892461 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2003.025908

Origins of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

2005· article· en· W2150892461 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsGlobal Affairs Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobacco controlConventionTreatyNegotiationPolitical scienceState (computer science)LawControl (management)Global healthResistance (ecology)Law and economicsPublic healthPublic administrationSociologyMedicineManagementEconomicsComputer scienceHealth careBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control originated in 1993 with a decision by Ruth Roemer and Allyn Taylor to apply to tobacco control Taylor's idea that the WHO should utilize its constitutional authority to develop international conventions to advance global health. In 1995, Taylor and Ruth Roemer proposed various options to WHO, recommending the framework convention-protocol approach conceptualized by Taylor. Despite initial resistance by some WHO officials, this approach gained wide acceptance. In 1996, the World Health Assembly voted to proceed with its development. Negotiations by WHO member states led the World Health Assembly in May 2003 to adopt by consensus the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control-the first international treaty adopted under WHO auspices. The treaty formally entered into force for state parties on February 27, 2005.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.289 · 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