MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184121606 · doi:10.19088/ictd.2021.010

More on the Positive Fiscal and Health Effects of Increasing Tobacco Taxes in Nigeria

2021· report· en· W3184121606 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Corné van Walbeek, Adedeji Adeniran, Iraoya Augustine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsExciseNigeriansTax revenueGovernment (linguistics)RevenueGovernment revenueEconomicsBusinessEnvironmental healthPublic economicsMedicinePolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nigeria is faced with substantial economic and health burdens caused by tobacco smoking. The economic burden of smoking accounts for approximately 1.3 per cent of Nigeria's GDP. In terms of its health impact, 4.9 per cent of all deaths in 2019 were attributed to smokingrelated diseases. The thousands of Nigerians that die annually from tobacco-induced diseases are no longer able to contribute productively to the economy. Tobacco taxation is one very effective mechanism for reducing the burden of smoking. This paper measures and benchmarks the economic gains and the number of lives that could be saved through increased tobacco taxation in Nigeria. Should the government of Nigeria increase the excise tax to 240 Naira per pack (together with an ad valorem tax of 50 per cent of the CIF/ex-works price), our model predicts that, over 30 years, nearly 150,000 premature deaths could be avoided. This is in addition to the more than 150 per cent increase in government revenue that would also result. The model indicates that the larger the increase in the excise tax, the greater would be its fiscal and public health impact.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.406 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207