MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389762210 · doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2023.101340

Cigarette packaging, warnings, prices, and contraband: A discrete choice experiment among smokers in Ontario, Canada

2023· article· en· W4389762210 on OpenAlexafffundabout
G. Emmanuel Guindon, Emmanouil Mentzakis, Noel J. Buckley

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomics & Human Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsPurchasingPackaging and labelingIncentiveAdvertisingTobacco controlEnvironmental healthPreferenceDiscrete choiceBusinessMedicineMarketingPublic healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, despite substantial decline, tobacco use remains the leading risk factor responsible for mortality and morbidity. There is overwhelming evidence that higher tobacco taxes reduce tobacco use, even if high taxes create an incentive to avoid or evade tobacco taxes. Recently, in addition to taxes, plain and standardized packaging and printing a warning on each cigarette have been lauded to reduce tobacco use. In November 2019, Canada became the country with the most comprehensive cigarette packaging regulations; and in June 2022, Canada proposed to print health warnings on individual cigarettes, the first jurisdiction to ever do so. The regulations came into force on August 1, 2023, and are being implemented through a stepwise approach. Our objective was to examine the effects of plain and standardized packaging, warning on cigarettes, price, and the availability of illicit cigarettes on intention to purchase and risk perceptions. We conducted a discrete choice experiment, and examined heterogeneity in preferences using latent class models among smokers in Ontario, Canada. We found that using latent class analyses was essential in quantifying preferences for attributes of cigarettes and cigarette packs. First, nearly half of smokers stated a preference for cheaper illicit cigarettes in a branded pack without any health warnings, regardless of the licit cigarette alternatives. For about 20% of respondents, plain packaging and especially warning on cigarette sticks decreased the probability of stating a purchasing preference for these alternatives. Third, about a third of respondents chose competing alternatives with mostly one attribute in mind, price. Lastly, none of the products and attributes seem to have significantly influenced risk perception. Our findings attest to the importance of prices and taxes, to the potential of warnings on cigarette sticks to control tobacco use, and indicate that efforts to restrict the availability of illicit cigarettes may yield substantial benefits.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomics & Human BiologySame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207