MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Philip Morris International: a New Year’s resolution

2018· article· en· W2793761841 on OpenAlexaff
Crawford Moodie, David Hammond, Linda Bauld

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Control · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperGovernment (linguistics)Tobacco controlConventionLawAdvertisingSmoking cessationBusinessPolitical scienceMedicinePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2018, Philip Morris International (PMI) placed ads in UK newspapers explaining that their New Year’s resolution was ‘to stop selling cigarettes in the UK’ (see figure 1).1 To help achieve this goal, the PMI ads refer to four commitments for 2018: Figure 1 Philip Morris International ads in the UK. 1. Launch a website and campaign to provide smokers with information on quitting and on alternatives to cigarettes 2. Offer to support Local Authority cessation services where smoking rates are highest 3. Seek Government approval to insert, directly into our cigarette packs, information on quitting and on switching 4. Expand the availability of new, alternative products in the UK. While the second commitment is contrary to Article 5.3 obligations of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC),2 and the third prohibited by the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015,3 the latter, at least, could be amended by the UK government. The relevant text, ‘No insert or additional material may be attached to or included with the packaging of a unit packet or container packet of cigarettes’, could be revised with the addition of ‘unless specified by Government (eg, to educate …

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)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0160.010
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0750.042
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.026

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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