A SURVEY ON THE EFFECTS OF PROGRESSIVE REMOVAL OF BRAND IMAGERY ELEMENTS FROM CIGARETTE PACKS ON THE PERCEPTION OF ADULT UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plain packaging can arguably reduce the appeal of cigarette packages and deter people from smoking. In this study, a 1 (brand type) X 4 (levels of plain packages) betweensubject\ndesign was utilized. The method used was an internet survey. 220 adult smokers\nand non-smokers from Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) rated packages in terms of\ntheir brand imagery characteristics and answered a single multiple choice question to test\ntheir recall of the health warning on their package. According to the results of a\nMANOVA test and a bivariate logistic regression test of perception attributes, the\nassociation between plainer packages and the participants’ ratings for some attributes\nwere significant, and ranged from slightly moderate to moderate strength levels of\nassociations. Health warnings recall and plainer packages were also significantly and\nmoderately associated. These associations provide a compelling argument for the need\nfor plain packaging policies as a deterrent for smoking.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".