Nicotine Vaccines for Smoking Prevention and Treatment from Utilitarian and Deontological Ethical Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nicotine vaccines are a new prevention and treatment method for smoking addiction. They are promoted as a method to cease smoking among those who smoke and possibly prevent this behaviour from taking place among those who do not smoke. However, offering these vaccines to adults, adolescents, and children will undoubtedly raise an ethical debate among policy-makers, health professionals, and the public. This paper discusses the possibility of using nicotine vaccines treat and prevent smoking among adults/children/adolescents through the lenses of two ethical theories: utilitarianism and deontology (Kantianism). From an utilitarian perspective, nicotine vaccines are good for society because they provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of individuals. Authors perceive them as a healthy ethical choice to prevent and treat smoking. And, from the deontological perspective, nicotine vaccines are justified because individuals can prevent the harm of nicotine addiction by choosing vaccines or any other smoking prevention and treatment methods.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".