MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229448443 · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107074

Brazilian smokers are ready for the ban on flavour additives in tobacco to be implemented

2022· article· en· W4229448443 on OpenAlexafffund
Christina N Kyriakos, Geoffrey T. Fong, Cristina Pérez, André Salem Szklo, Pete Driezen, Anne C K Quah, Valeska Carvalho Figueiredo, Filippos T Filippidis

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPan American Health OrganizationOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchInstitut National Du CancerImperial College LondonUniversity of WarwickInstituto Nacional do Câncer, Ministério da SaúdeFundação do Câncer
KeywordsMedicineFlavourEnvironmental healthTraditional medicineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brazil became the first country to approve a national policy to ban all flavour additives in all tobacco leaf products in 2012. However, as of February 2022, the policy remained to be implemented. Cross-sectional data come from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Brazil Wave 3 Survey among adult smokers (N = 1216) in 2016-2017. The majority of smokers supported a ban on menthol (56.0%; 95%CI: 51.7-60.2%) and a ban on all additives (61.7%; 57.5-65.8%), with no significant differences across sociodemographic groups in adjusted logistic regression models. More than half of menthol smokers reported they would either quit or reduce the amount they smoked if menthol cigarettes were banned. Findings suggest that there is support for Brazil's ban on flavour additives, which is a determinant of successful policy implemented. Continued delays will postpone an important measure with demonstrated public health gains.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive MedicineSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207