The immediate and long-term changes in support of tobacco display ban after its implementation in New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four recent studies, two with particularly strong methodology, have assessed post-implementation support for tobacco display bans.1–4 The first found generally high support but no difference between Canadian smokers who lived in provinces that had or had not implemented a ban.1 In Norway, public support remained the same 1 year post-implementation as before the ban (29–32% of daily and 49–58% of occasional smokers).3 Our study assessed the immediate and long-term changes in support among smokers and recent quitters in New Zealand following implementation of a display ban on 28 July 2012. We assessed support for this ban immediately before (May–July 2012—Time 1), immediately after (August–October 2012—Time 2) and 1 year after the ban (July–September 2013—Time 3). The New Zealand Smoking Monitor is a fortnightly telephone-based survey (n=120), and recruits respondents from an omnibus that has a representative adult sample. Respondents are maintained on a panel and interviewed up to six times. Those who drop out from the sample either …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".