The Australian tobacco plain packaging legislation: a case study on intellectual property enforcement and policy intervention to promote public health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In August 2018, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel adopted its report on the Australian tobacco plain packaging measures.1 The decision has been hailed as a reaffirmation of a sovereign state’s right to regulate in international economic law and a clear check on the likely abuse of investor–state dispute mechanism.2 Tobacco products have been shown to have severely adverse health consequences. The Canadian Medical Association in particular issued its first public warning on the health hazards associated with smoking in 1954.3 The call for plain packaging or standardization of tobacco packaging requirements dates back to 1986 when the Canadian Medical Association passed a resolution to the effect that tobacco products should be released into the market in plain packages with very visible warnings on harmful effects of tobacco without any extraneous information being allowed on the packages.4 Regulating the use of tobacco products is a very important public health objective that has significant human rights implications especially in relation to the protection of public health.5
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".