Commercial tobacco and indigenous peoples: a stock take on Framework Convention on Tobacco Control progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The health status and needs of indigenous populations of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are often compared because of the shared experience of colonisation. One enduring impact has been a disproportionately high rate of commercial tobacco use compared with non-indigenous populations. All three countries have ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which acknowledges the harm caused to indigenous peoples by tobacco. AIM AND OBJECTIVES: We evaluated and compared reporting on FCTC progress related to indigenous peoples by Australia, Canada and New Zealand as States Parties. The critiqued data included disparities in smoking prevalence between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples; extent of indigenous participation in tobacco control development, implementation and evaluation; and what indigenous commercial tobacco reduction interventions were delivered and evaluated. DATA SOURCES: We searched FCTC: (1) Global Progress Reports for information regarding indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada and New Zealand; and (2) country-specific reports from Australia, Canada and New Zealand between 2007 and 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Two of the authors independently reviewed the FCTC Global and respective Country Reports, identifying where indigenous search terms appeared. DATA EXTRACTION: All data associated with the identified search terms were extracted, and content analysis was applied. RESULTS: It is difficult to determine if or what progress has been made to reduce commercial tobacco use by the three States Parties as part of their commitments under FCTC reporting systems. There is some evidence that progress is being made towards reducing indigenous commercial tobacco use, including the implementation of indigenous-focused initiatives. However, there are significant gaps and inconsistencies in reporting. Strengthening FCTC reporting instruments to include standardised indigenous-specific data will help to realise the FCTC Guiding Principles by holding States Parties to account and building momentum for reducing the high prevalence of commercial tobacco use among indigenous peoples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.201 | 0.259 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".