Perception of the Food and Drug Administration Electronic Cigarette Flavor Enforcement Policy on Twitter: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On January 2, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released the electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) flavor enforcement policy to prohibit the sale of all flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes, except for menthol and tobacco flavors. OBJECTIVE: This research aimed to examine the public perception of this FDA flavor enforcement policy and its impact on the public perception of e-cigarettes on Twitter. METHODS: A total of 2,341,660 e-cigarette-related tweets and 190,490 FDA flavor enforcement policy-related tweets in the United States were collected from Twitter before (between June 13 and August 22, 2019) and after (between January 2 and March 30, 2020) the announcement of the FDA flavor enforcement policy. Sentiment analysis was conducted to detect the changes in the public perceptions of the policy and e-cigarettes on Twitter. Topic modeling was used for finding frequently discussed topics about e-cigarettes. RESULTS: The proportion of negative sentiment tweets about e-cigarettes significantly increased after the announcement of the FDA flavor enforcement policy compared with before the announcement of the policy. In contrast, the overall sentiment toward the FDA flavor enforcement policy became less negative. The FDA flavor enforcement policy was the most popular topic associated with e-cigarettes after the announcement of the FDA flavor enforcement policy. Twitter users who discussed about e-cigarettes started to talk about other alternative ways of getting e-cigarettes after the FDA flavor enforcement policy. CONCLUSIONS: Twitter users' perceptions of e-cigarettes became more negative after the announcement of the FDA flavor enforcement policy.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".