A call for action to support best practices in evaluation of comprehensive tobacco control evaluation strategies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Tobacco Control Best Practices Working Group convened a two-day workshop to support best practices in evaluation of comprehensive tobacco control strategies. A Better Practices Model, aimed at developing a self-correcting system for best practices, guided the workshop content and process. Organizers intended to identify a common surveillance and monitoring framework for tobacco control strategies in Canada by first building strong working relationships between 44 decision-makers, practitioners and researchers from 12 Canadian jurisdictions. Participants identified needs and recommendations related to increased understanding and use of uniform evaluation strategies, building capacity, and recognition of the complexity of the task of evaluating comprehensive tobacco control strategies. The workshop highlighted the need for increased communication to facilitate understanding across the different sectors of participants. It also identified the potential benefits of harmonization in evaluation of tobacco control strategies across jurisdictions. Priority actions include forming a national team to agree on a model for evaluation, conducting an environmental scan for indicators, planning evaluation / monitoring and research agendas and determining roles for various stakeholders.
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 | 0.368 | 0.351 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".