MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791283330 · doi:10.3390/ijerph15020282

Testing Cessation Messages for Cigarette Package Inserts: Findings from a Best/Worst Discrete Choice Experiment

2018· article· en· W2791283330 on OpenAlexaff
James F. Thrasher, Farahnaz Islam, Rachel Davis, Lucy Popova, Victoria Lambert, Yoo Jin Cho, Ramzi G. Salloum, Jordan J. Louviere, David Hammond

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSmoking cessationComputer scienceMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 1000) participated in three discrete choice experiments (DCEs): DCE 1 assessed five cessation benefit topics and five imagery types; DCE 2 assessed five messages with tips to improve cessation success and five imagery types; DCE 3 assessed four reproductive health benefits of cessation topics and four imagery types. In each DCE, participants evaluated four or five sets of four inserts, selecting the most and least motivating (DCEs 1 & 3) or helpful (DCE 2) for quitting. Linear mixed models regressed choices on insert and smoker characteristics. For DCE 1, the most motivating messages involved novel disease topics and imagery of younger women. For DCE 2, topics of social support, stress reduction and nicotine replacement therapy were selected as most helpful, with no differences by imagery type. For DCE 3, imagery influenced choices more than topic, with imagery of a family or a mom and baby selected as most motivating. Statistically significant interactions for all three experiments indicated that the influence of imagery type on choices depended on the message topic. Messages to promote smoking cessation through cigarette pack inserts should consider specific combinations of message topic and imagery.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207