MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221097736 · doi:10.1080/23779497.2022.2038035

Investing to kill: return on investment of tobacco companies compared to high-mortality and neutral industries

2022· article· en· W4221097736 on OpenAlexaff
Madeleine R. Hollman, Joshua M. Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Security Health Science and Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismTobacco industryInvestment (military)BusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terrorists have worked directly with tobacco companies and used tobacco sales to fund traditional terrorist activities. This familiarity with tobacco, coupled with the high mortality rate of tobacco indicates terrorists may use tobacco investing as a means of covert legal killings (CLK), which refers to the terrorist intention of mass killing in a targeted group using legal means. To provide insight into tobacco investors’ motives this study 1) quantifies annual death rate for leading mortality-causing industries in America.; 2) identifies eight companies responsible for the highest CLK; 3) compares investment returns for eight high-mortality companies to the S&P 500 from 2009 to 2019 to determine if tobacco is the most likely target for terrorist-based CLK. The top three highest mortality rate companies and thus best CLK investments from a terrorist perspective were tobacco companies: Altria Group Inc., Reynolds America Inc., and Imperial Brands. Together, these tobacco companies are responsible for >436,800 American premature deaths/year, yet tobacco investments performed worse than the S&P500 over the last decade. It is clear that for CLK investors, tobacco is the most efficient means of investing to kill Americans. Questionable tobacco investor intentionality, combined with the recent advancement in CLK theory makes it reasonable to assume that some tobacco investors are terrorists using their wealth to specifically target and kill Americans. To determine how widespread this practice is, future work is needed to evaluate CLK tobacco investors against the Terrorist Screening Database.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Security Health Science and PolicySame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207