Did E-Cigarette Users Notice the New European Union’s E-Cigarette Legislation? Findings from the 2015–2017 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined to what extent e-cigarette users noticed the European Union’s new legislation regarding e-cigarettes, and whether this may have influenced perceptions regarding addictiveness and toxicity. Data were obtained from yearly surveys (2015–2017) of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey. Descriptive statistics and Generalized Estimating Equations were applied. About a third of the e-cigarette users noticed the text warning (28%) and the leaflet (32%). When compared to tobacco-only smokers, e-cigarette users showed greater increases in perceptions regarding addictiveness (β = 0.457, p = 0.045 vs. β = 0.135, p < 0.001) and toxicity (β = 0.246, p = 0.055 vs. β = 0.071, p = 0.010). In conclusion, the new legislation’s noticeability should be increased.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".