MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790812692 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.170379

Sugar-sweetened beverages as the new tobacco: examining a proposed tax policy through a Canadian social justice lens

2018· article· en· W2790812692 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Natalie D. Riediger, Andrea E. Bombak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsObesitySugarTax policyEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceBusinessEconomicsPublic economicsMedicineFood scienceTax reformBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KEY POINTS Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages is consistently, positively associated with obesity.[1][1] A much-discussed policy lever to address obesity is taxation of such beverages. The Canadian Diabetes Association,[2][2] Heart and Stroke Foundation[3][3] and World Health Organization (WHO)[4][

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.350 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations62
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207