Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, IQOS, Philip Morris’s (PM’s) heated tobacco product, is being test-marketed in 30 countries worldwide.1 Similarly to electronic cigarettes,2 regulation varies widely by country. In the USA, for example, sales and marketing of IQOS are currently prohibited by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) premarket approval structure, pending a decision by the FDA.3 Canada allows marketing, and has been termed a ‘dark market’ due to its strong tobacco advertising ban in combination with its categorisation of IQOS as a tobacco product.4 Italy, by contrast, has exempted IQOS from its comprehensive ban on cigarette advertising and also from the graphic warnings which are required on cigarettes.5 This paper describes the entry of IQOS into Israel, and its marketing campaign (see Figure 1). In 2016, when the IQOS campaign began, the adult smoking prevalence was 21.6%.6 Israel was a signatory to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), had a governmentally approved tobacco control plan, national legislation for smoke-free public indoor and outdoor places and high levels of taxation.7 A partial advertising ban was in place which prohibited advertisement of tobacco products on television and radio, and in print press publications directed at youth.7 No premarket regulatory mechanism existed for any tobacco or nicotine product, and Israel did not have any distinct category for emerging tobacco and nicotine products. Figure 1 Timeline of IQOS campaign in Israel. During the first half of 2016, PM communicated directly with officials from the Ministries of Health and Finance via high-level meetings and letters prior to marketing of IQOS to the public.6 This is consistent with PM’s global strategy.8 Following these meetings, the Ministry of Health (MOH) sent a letter to the Tax Authority defining IQOS as a new product which did not fall under existing tobacco regulation.9 PM …
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.012 |
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".