Supervenience and the Public Health Standard for Psychoactive Substances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses Geoffrey Rose’s theory of population health change to identify that part of lack of resolution of the harm reduction debates emerges from the philosophical question of the possibility of group-level causation. Group-level causation, otherwise known as the supervenience of higher levels onto lower levels, has been a core matter of philosophical and ethical debate. This paper argues that there, the public health standard depends crucially on the contextual environment rather than the individual product’s intrinsic properties. Interpretation of the benefits or the harms of e-cigarettes or other harm reduction products depends on the often unstated assumptions of the potential policy and cultural environments in which e-cigarettes exist, as well as the separate debate over the absolute or relative level of harm of e-cigarettes. Unfortunately, most of the research conducted will not contribute to our understanding of the potential impact of e-cigarettes until we focus on the potential changes to the social and political environment.
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 | 0.044 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".