Product Substitution after a Real World Menthol Ban: A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: , 2017 adding to an existing flavour ban. However, all flavoured e-cigarettes, flavoured cigars larger than 6g, and alcohol flavoured cigars without filters over 1.4g were exempted. This paper examines the association between use of flavoured non-cigarette products and self-reported cigarette smoking cessation after the ban. METHODS: Current past-30 day cigarette smokers (N=913) who were 16 years or older, living in Ontario were recruited between September-December 2016 and re-contacted January-August 2018. RESULTS: Both daily and occasional pre-ban menthol cigarette smokers were more likely to use flavoured cigar products (adjusted relative rate, RR=1.53, 95% confidence interval, CI=1.01, 2.31; adjusted RR=1.57, 95% CI=1.06, 2.30) after the ban, while occasional pre-ban menthol cigarette smokers were more likely to use other tobacco products (adjusted RR=1.25, 95% CI=1.02, 1.53) or flavoured other tobacco products (adjusted RR=1.56, 95% CI=1.09, 2.24), conditional on prior use. CONCLUSIONS: Menthol smokers prior to the ban were more likely to use other tobacco products, or flavoured tobacco products, after the ban. These results suggest that comprehensive menthol bans could be more effective without the option of using flavoured tobacco or nicotine products as substitutes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".