MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900562455 · doi:10.1111/joca.12232

Integrating Negative Social Cues in Tobacco Packaging: A Novel Approach to Discouraging Smokers

2018· article· en· W2900562455 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Affairs · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFeelingPsychologySocial psychologyIdentity (music)Tobacco controlSocial identity theoryConsciousnessFear appealAdvertisingPublic healthMedicineSocial groupBusinessAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smoking is an international health crisis. Tobacco packaging is an important vehicle to convey antismoking messages, which to date have been predominantly limited to fear‐based health appeals. Using an experimental approach, we examine whether a novel alternative—using negative social cues on packaging—is effective at discouraging smoking. Our results support the notion that packaging which conveys to smokers that “others” view smoking negatively is sufficient to trigger feelings of self‐consciousness, which in turn reduces smoking intentions. This approach is particularly effective in “isolated” smokers who do not see smoking as identity‐relevant or congruent with their social self. These findings suggest that for a particular segment of the smoking population, the integration of negative social cues on packaging may be an effective complement to current fear‐based appeals.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.324 · 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