Perspective on Cancer Control: Whither the Tobacco Endgame for Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: In 2014, in response to evidence that Canada’s tobacco use would lead, inexorably, to substantial morbidity and mortality for the foreseeable future, a group of experts convened to consider the development of a “Tobacco Endgame” for Canada. The “Tobacco Endgame” defines a time frame in which to eliminate structural, political, and social dynamics that sustain tobacco use, leading to improved population health. Strategies: A series of Background Papers describing possible measures that could contribute to the creation of a comprehensive endgame strategy for Canada was prepared in advance of the National Tobacco Endgame Summit hosted at Queen’s University in 2016. At the summit, agreement was reached to work together to achieve <5% tobacco use by 2035 (<5 by ’35). A report of the proceedings was shared widely. Achievements: Progress since 2016 has been mixed. The Summit report was followed by a national forum convened by Health Canada in March 2017, and in 2018, the Canadian Government adopted “<5 × ’35” tobacco use target in a renewed Canadian tobacco reduction strategy. Tobacco use has declined in the last 5 years, but at a rate slower than that which will be needed to achieve the <5 by ’35 goal. There remain > 5 million smokers in Canada, signaling that smoking-related diseases will continue to be an enormous health burden. Furthermore, the landscape of new products (e-cigarettes and cannabis) has created additional risks and opportunities. Future directions: A bold, reinvigorated tobacco control strategy is needed that significantly advances ongoing policy developments, including full implementation of the key demand-reduction policies of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Formidable, new disruptive policies and regulations will be needed to achieve Canada’s Endgame goal.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".