MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4308286184 · doi:10.32388/8wxh0j

Review of: "Tobacco endgame intervention impacts on health gains and Māori:non-Māori health inequity: a simulation study of the Aotearoa-New Zealand Tobacco Action Plan"

2022· peer-review· en· W4308286184 on OpenAlexaff
Clive Bates, Ben Youdan, Ruth Bonita, George Laking, David Sweanor, Robert Beaglehole

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAotearoaChess endgameTobacco useAction planIntervention (counseling)Action (physics)Environmental healthPolitical sciencePsychologyMedicineComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building on recent progress towards the New Zealand Smokefree 2025 goal, the Government plans to introduce tobacco control legislation giving ministers powers to implement three significant new policies: a steep reduction in the number of retail outlets that can sell tobacco; a 'smokefree generation' proposal that would make it illegal to sell tobacco to anyone born after a certain date, and; regulations to remove most of the nicotine from tobacco to reduce its appeal and addictive effects.In preparation for this legislation, the Ministry of Health funded academics from Australia and New Zealand to model estimates of the likely impact of these measures, especially their contribution to achieving the Smokefree 2025 goal.The modelling, published as a preprint, Ouakrim et al. (2022) [1] ,is the subject of this review.It focuses on the modelling of the denicotinisation of tobacco because, according to the authors, it has the greatest impact.A number of significant flaws have been identified.The modelling is based on a fundamental and incorrect assumption that denicotinisation would reduce smoking by 85% over five years compared to business-as-usual.This draws on an earlier modelling paper, Wilson et al. (2022), [2] supplemented by other literature and expert opinion.The assumption, used as a key input to the model, is derived from a misinterpretation of a well-conducted randomised controlled trial of smoking cessation interventions that included very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes in New Zealand in 2009-10, Walker et al. (2012).[3] The problem is that the trial design bears little relation to a population-wide denicotinisation regulatory intervention and its findings are not at all transferable to a model of the legislation.Volunteers who had already called the Quitline were given pharmacological and behavioural support;The intervention group were also given free VLNC cigarettes and instructed to smoke them if they wanted to;The trial intervention lasted only eight weeks and its impact assessed at six months.The trial does not include the most likely responses to the denicotinisation measure: switching to vaping, accessing an expanded illicit market, or workarounds by consumers or producers.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.009

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→