The 2018 public consultation on standardized packaging in Singapore: Analysis of policy actors' submissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a public consultation in 2018, Singapore implemented standardized tobacco packaging as part of its portfolio of tobacco control policies in 2020, in compliance with Article 11 guidelines for implementing the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This study analyzed policy actors in opposition to standardized packaging in Singapore and their submissions to the public consultation. Policy actors were profiled, and their arguments were then coded and compared across submissions. Descriptive results were then summarized in a narrative synthesis. In total, 79 submissions were considered for final analysis that opposed plain packaging in Singapore. Thematic analysis shows that transnational tobacco companies and their subsidiaries in Singapore, along with a variety of policy actors opposed to the standardized packaging policy, have significant similarities in arguments, often with identical statements. Industry tactics included framing tobacco as a trade and investment issue; utilizing trade barriers, intellectual property, and investment rights; pursuing litigation or threat of litigation; mobilizing third-party support and citing policy failure. This study provides evidence that further contributes to the growing literature on commercial determinants of health particularly industry tactics and, in this case, where the tobacco industry and its local and global allies, utilize to counter evidence-based tobacco control measures.
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 | 0.053 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".