Tobacco packaging littering behaviours among Australian adults who smoke: findings from cross-sectional and observational studies to inform the implementation of cigarette pack inserts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cigarette pack inserts are small cards that highlight the benefits of quitting and promote use of smoking cessation support. With evidence from Canada that they increase self-efficacy to quit, quit attempts and sustained cessation, inserts are set to be introduced into tobacco packs sold in Australia. Some people have expressed concern that the introduction of inserts may create more litter if incorrectly disposed of on pack-opening. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional survey to assess self-reported pack-opening location and waste disposal behaviours of people who smoke to determine the potential for littering to occur when tobacco packs are first opened. We also visited a sample of supermarkets, convenience stores and tobacconists located throughout Melbourne, Australia, to discreetly collect observational data regarding pack-opening and waste disposal behaviours at the point of purchase. RESULTS: Among participants in the cross-sectional study (N=369), the majority reported that they opened their most recent tobacco pack at home (70.9%) where there is little potential for littering, and this proportion was higher among those who smoke daily (78.6%) and men (74.3%). Self-reported behaviours that could result in littering were rare; 1.0% reported that they left tobacco packaging where they believed it would be collected for disposal. Of the 128 individuals observed at the point of purchase across 46 stores, 96.9% did not open the tobacco product immediately after purchase. One incident of littering was observed (0.8%). CONCLUSION: The introduction of cigarette pack inserts in Australia is unlikely to create a substantial amount of additional litter.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".