Greater Than the Sum: Systems Thinking in Tobacco Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of the Tobacco Control Monograph Series underscores its growing importance as a resource for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers in tobacco control as well as in other areas of public health.Lessons learned from tobacco prevention and control can be applied to a variety of public health issues, including physical activity, diet and nutrition, overweight and obesity, and substance abuse.The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is committed to disseminating this cross-cutting knowledge to the widest possible audience so that others can benefit from the experience of the tobacco prevention and control community.By so doing, NCI is increasing the evidence base for effective public health interventions and improving the translation of research to practice and policy.In 1991, NCI published the first monograph in a series designed to address cutting-edge issues and research on tobacco control.That monograph, Strategies to Control Tobacco Use in the United States: A Blueprint for Public Health Action in the 1990's, was visionary in its scope and focus: not only did it acknowledge that tobacco use was a complex problem that demanded new ways of thinking and acting, but it also encouraged expanded exploration of tobacco use issues by the tobacco control community.The three-axis model for the American Stop Smoking Intervention Study for Cancer Prevention (ASSIST), described in Monograph 1, was designed to address the complex interplay of varied target populations, critical channels for intervening (e.g., health care, schools, worksites, and community groups), and intervention types (e.g., mass media, program services, and policy).(See Monograph 16: ASSIST: Shaping the Future of Tobacco Prevention and Control and Monograph 17: Evaluating ASSIST: A Blueprint for Understanding State-level Tobacco Control for more details.)Although it did not adopt the "systems" nomenclature, Monograph 1 laid the foundation for this monograph (Monograph 18), which provides a new and expanded vision of tobacco control as a complex adaptive system.This new model encourages the tobacco control community to (1) collect and use vast arrays of data more effectively; (2) develop and optimize networks to enable the community to more efficiently address varied populations, critical channels for intervention, and intervention types; and (3) support the analysis of complex systems so that more effective strategic decisions are made.Monograph 18 builds on the foundation laid by Monograph 1 by explicitly encouraging (1) the development of informatics infrastructures and collaborative networks, (2) analysis of complex interacting variables, and (3) adoption of new interventions that can speed research to practice (and practice to research).Monograph 18, as the conceptual heir to Monograph 1, provides a new framework for thinking about and acting on the complex relationships among causal factors of public health threats, and it challenges us to consider not just whether we can more effectively use our knowledge of informatics and information management, networks, and complex systems, but whether we will use those essential tools to more rapidly benefit the public's health.
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".