MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137968646 · doi:10.33915/etd.2316

The politics of the evolution of global tobacco control: The formation and functioning of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)

2005· dissertation· en· W3137968646 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hadii M. Mamudu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth CanadaPan American Health OrganizationUniversity of California, Los AngelesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionPhilip Morris InternationalAmerican Thoracic SocietyBritish American TobaccoMinistry of Health, New ZealandWorld Health OrganizationEuropean CommissionU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesInternational Development Research CentreStyrelsen för Internationellt UtvecklingssamarbeteAmerican Heart AssociationU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsTobacco controlConventionPolitical sciencePoliticsControl (management)EliteMedicineLawPublic healthEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study investigates the politics behind the evolution of tobacco as a global issue leading to adoption of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in May 2003. The study relies on liberal-constructivist perspective to analyze the transformation of tobacco control between 1960 and 2003. The study uses a combination of elite interview and content analysis. It found that the presence of an international organization with constitutional powers in tobacco control, WHO and the diffusion and transfer of knowledge, information, and ideas about tobacco use and tobacco control contributed to the emergence of tobacco control as a global phenomenon and the FCTC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207