MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2267294758 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.150347

Regulating electronic cigarettes: finding the balance between precaution and harm reduction

2015· article· en· W2267294758 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ronald Labonté, Raphael Lencucha

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityInstitute of Population and Public HealthMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarm reductionBalance (ability)HarmCommonsNicotineHouse of CommonsComputer scienceBusinessMedicineInternet privacyComputer securityPolitical sciencePublic healthLawPsychiatryPathologyParliamentPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 2015, the federal Standing Committee on Health presented a report to the House of Commons on the highly contentious issue of how to regulate electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), also called electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes. After considering regulatory models that have been

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0320.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→