Plain Packaging in Tobacco Control: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tobacco epidemic is affecting 8 million people with 1.2 million deaths worldwide. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) was adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) Member States in 2003 to counter the growing tobacco menace. Articles 11 and 13 of WHO FCTC suggest plain packaging of tobacco products to reduce the visibility and make tobacco products look less attractive. The current bibliometric analysis was conducted to analyze the visibility and impact of the scientific productions contributing to plain packaging globally. The bibliometric analysis allowed a quantitative analysis of all scientific publications indexed in Scopus. The sample was defined using the keywords "plain packaging OR standardized packaging" AND "tobacco." Five broad bibliometric domains were assessed for analysis: namely, scientific production, authors, sources or journals, countries, and thematic areas using R programming v4.2.2 and VOSviewer. The total number of documents published regarding plain packaging in tobacco control from 1992 till mid-2022 was determined. Australia tops the list with 99 publications, followed by the United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand, Canada, France, India, Netherlands, Spain, and Egypt. The author citation network showcases the link between the 21 top documents, with a minimum of 50 citations per document. The two main indicators assessed were the total number of articles published in the journal and the h index. Bibliometric indicators in this study illustrated that scientific publications/efforts to implement the WHO FCTC guideline concerning plain packing laws were neglected in most countries.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.090 | 0.241 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".