Smokers’ reactions to reduced ignition propensity cigarettes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On 28 June 2004, New York State (NY) became the first jurisdiction to require cigarettes to meet a reduced ignition propensity (RIP) standard. This law resulted in cigarette manufacturers modifying nearly all of their brands sold in NY. However, the same cigarette brands sold in other states were not modified to meet the RIP standard. OBJECTIVES: This paper examines relationships between the RIP law and smokers' awareness of changes in the performance of their cigarettes (that is, going out more frequently, change in taste), and smoking behaviour. METHODS: Data for this analysis come from a nationwide survey of 2088 adult smokers (> 18 years of age) conducted in the USA between July and December 2004. 143 of the smokers included in the survey were residents of NY while the remainder were from other states (n = 1945). Survey participants were asked whether their cigarettes "ever go out between puffs" and whether they had noticed any change in the taste of their cigarettes in the past 12 months. RESULTS: NY smokers were three times more likely than smokers in other states to report that their cigarettes often went out between puffs (17.3% v 5.6%). However, NY smokers appeared no more likely to report noticing differences in cigarette taste, an intention to quit smoking, or to have made quit attempts. CONCLUSIONS: A significant minority of smokers in NY reported noticing changes in the performance of their cigarettes following the RIP law, as would be expected. However, the RIP law appears to have had no impact on the smoking habits of New Yorkers, countering arguments made by cigarette manufacturers that the law would impact consumer acceptability.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".