A Novel Method for Evaluating the Acceptability of Substitutes for Cigarettes: The Experimental Tobacco Marketplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The current study tests the substitutability of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), electronic cigarettes (ECs), and very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) in the context of an online experimental tobacco marketplace (ETM) that was designed to mimic the choices of smokers under 4 policy scenarios. METHODS: Dutch cigarette smokers (N = 840) completed an online survey in July 2015. The ETM was comprised of conventional cigarettes, VLNCs, ECs (disposable/cartridge/tank systems), and NRT (lozenges/patches/tabs). All participants completed a scenario in which conventional cigarettes were banned. To test additional policy scenarios participants were randomized to one of 3 experiments: 1) no VLNCs, 2) all products available, or 3) no ECs. Hypothetical weekly purchases were made when the cost for conventional cigarettes was ½ market price (MP), MP, 2x MP, and 4x MP. Substitutability was measured by the change in estimated consumption as cigarette prices increased. RESULTS: Tank and cartridge ECs and VLNCs were stronger cigarette substitutes than disposable ECs and NRT products. Substitution of ECs and NRT for cigarettes was dampened when VLNCs were available. CONCLUSIONS: The ETM offers a method to predict how smokers might respond to policies that alter the availability of potentially substitutable products available in the marketplace.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".