MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792933513 · doi:10.18332/tid/84645

Evaluating compliance of labelling on tobacco packets in countries across the Middle East

2018· article· en· W2792933513 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Mir, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Induced Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabellingCompliance (psychology)Middle EastEnvironmental healthMedicineBusinessPsychologyGeographySocial psychologyCriminologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Despite knowledge of harms, smoking rates remain high and continue to rise in Middle Eastern Countries. Initiatives such as the FCTC were developed to address the tobacco epidemic through health policy. Despite its positive impact, implementation remains a challenge. In this study, we assess compliance of labelling on tobacco packets from twelve Middle Eastern countries with national legislation and FCTC recommendations. Methods Investigators from twelve Middle Eastern Countries collected at least 10 unique packets of the most commonly consumed and cheapest brands of cigarettes between January 2015 and November 2016. The countries included Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (High-Income Countries - HIC), Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey (Upper-Middle Income Countries - UMIC), Egypt, and Palestine (Low-Middle-Income Countries - LMIC). A total of 140 packets were inspected using a structured data collection tool; all labels were assessed for content, size, and location. Results Health Warnings were present on the Principal Display Area (PDA - front and back panel) on 98% of packets. All countries except for Palestine met or exceeded the WHO minimum recommendations that 30% of the packets PDA should be covered by a health warning label. However, only Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkey met their own national legislation about the minimum area of the packets PDA that must be covered by a health warning label. Promotional labels were present on all packages. Deceptive terms such as 'light' and 'blue' were found on 55% of all packs. Conclusions Most countries were compliant with WHO recommendations on health warning labelling. However, there is poor compliance and implementation of national legislation in these countries. Promotional and deceptive labelling were present on packets from all countries despite being banned accordingly to WHO recommendations and national legislation. Monitoring labelling on tobacco packets with country-specific feedback may help improve compliance and implementation.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.226
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTobacco Induced DiseasesSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207