MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207050914

Nicotine content, labelling and flavours of e-liquids in Canada in 2020: a scan of the online retail market

2022· article· W4207050914 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNicotineLabellingPackaging and labelingTobacco productBusinessProduct (mathematics)Electronic cigaretteAdvertisingEuropean marketChemistryFood scienceMarketingCommerceMedicineMathematicsEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p dir="ltr">Introduction: The e-cigarette market in Canada has rapidly evolved following the implementation of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act in May 2018, which liberalized the promotion and sale of vaping products. To date, there is little data on the market profile of key product attributes, including nicotine content, labelling practices and flavours. <p dir="ltr">Methods: An online scan of vaping product retailers (manufacturer, two national, five provincial) was conducted in 2020 to assess the e-liquids available on the Canadian market. Data were extracted from websites and product images regarding the nicotine content, labelling and flavours of e-liquids. <p dir="ltr">Results: We identified 1746 e-liquids, with a total of 4790 different nicotine concentrations. Approximately half of the e-liquids were offered with salt-base nicotine (46.6%) and half with freebase nicotine (53.2%); the remainder were hybrids (0.2%). The mean nicotine concentration of salt-base e-liquids (3.4%) was higher than freebase e-liquids (0.5%) (p < 0.001). Labels indicating the presence of nicotine were visible on twothirds of e-liquid packaging displayed online (63.2%) while three-quarters of packaging displayed the nicotine concentration (73.7%), and more than half of packaging displayed health warnings (58.9%). A variety of flavours were also identified, with fruit being the most common (43.6%), followed by candy/desserts (27.6%) and non-alcoholic drinks (12.5%). <p dir="ltr">Conclusion: Findings demonstrate the diversity of the online e-cigarette market in Canada, including the availability of higher-concentration salt-base nicotine products. Flavour restrictions have the potential to dramatically reduce the number of e-liquid flavours on the market, while restricting nicotine concentrations to < 20 mg/mL will predominantly restrict salt-based e-liquids.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1500.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.193 · 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