Tobacco Endgame Simulation Modelling: Assessing the Impact of Policy Changes on Smoking Prevalence in 2035
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smoking causes substantial amount of mortality and morbidity. This article presents the findings from simulation models that projected the impact of five potential Tobacco Endgame strategies on smoking prevalence in Ontario by 2035 and expected impact of smoking prevalence “less than 5 by 35” on tax revenue. We used Ontario SimSmoke simulation for modelling the expected impact of four strategies: plain packaging, free cessation services, decreasing the number of tobacco outlets, and increasing tobacco taxes. Separate models were used to project the impact of increasing the minimum age to legally purchase tobacco to 21 years on smoking prevalence and impact of price and tax increase to achieve “less than 5 by 35” on taxation revenue. The combined effect of four strategies in Ontario SimSmoke Model are expected to reduce smoking prevalence by 8.5% in 2035. Increasing tobacco taxes had the greatest independent predicted decrease in smoking prevalence (2.8%) followed by raised minimum age for legal purchase to 21 years (2.4%), decreasing tobacco outlets (1.5%), free cessation services (0.7%), and plain packaging (0.6%). Increasing tobacco excise tax and prices are projected to have minimal impact on taxation revenue, with a decrease from 1.5 billion to 1.2 billion annual tax receipts.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it