MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3216128734

Health Policy: Courts reverse ban on tobacco displays

2004· article· en· W3216128734 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Amy Jo Ehman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealLawSupreme courtLegislationCharterPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saskatchewan's groundbreaking “shower curtain law,” which banned the display of cigarettes in retail stores, has been reversed. The Court of Appeal in Regina has thrown out the law, ruling that tobacco companies have the right to display their products on store shelves. “I was very disappointed with the Court of Appeal's decision,” said Saskatchewan Minister of Health John Nilson. “We were the first in the world to go ahead with this type of legislation. We knew we would have challenges.” Saskatchewan will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, he added. In March 2002, stores in that province were ordered to cover all tobacco products that could be viewed by children under 18. The nickname “shower curtain law” reflects just one of the methods used by retailers to comply with the law. After the appeal court ruling in October, most storeowners quickly removed the covers. The law was challenged by Rothmans, Benson and Hedges, Canada's second largest tobacco manufacturer. It argued that the law conflicted with the federal Tobacco Act, which permits the display of cigarettes in stores. The appeal court judges ruled that in the case of a conflict, federal law takes precedence over provincial law. “It's a basic right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to display a legal product at retail,” said company lawyer John McDonald. He said cigarette displays in stores do not influence people to smoke. Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada is disappointed with the ruling because it believes children are encouraged to smoke when they see packages of cigarettes displayed next to candy. “It's a sad day when the technicalities of law take precedence over the health of our children,” said Saskatoon spokesperson Dr. Stuart Houston. “It's terrible that judges are making laws that should be made by our legislators.” The organization plans to lobby the federal government to amend the Tobacco Act so that provinces can pass their own laws concerning the display and advertising of tobacco products. Manitoba has passed a similar law that will come into effect this month. — Amy Jo Ehman, Saskatoon

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.008
Scholarly communication0.0180.006
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0480.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.005

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→