Public Perceptions of Very Low Nicotine Content on Twitter: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nicotine is a highly addictive agent in tobacco products. On June 21, 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a plan to propose a rule to establish a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand public perception and discussion of very low nicotine content (VLNC) on Twitter (rebranded as X in July 2023). METHODS: From December 12, 2021, to January 1, 2023, we collected Twitter data using relevant keywords such as "vln," "low nicotine," and "reduced nicotine." After a series of preprocessing steps (such as removing duplicates, retweets, and commercial tweets), we identified 3270 unique noncommercial tweets related to VLNC. We used an inductive method to assess the public perception and discussion of VLNC on Twitter. To establish a codebook, we randomly selected 300 tweets for hand-coding, including the attitudes (positive, neutral, and negative) toward VLNC (including its proposed rule) and major topics (13 topics). The Cohen κ statistic between the 2 human coders reached over 70%, indicating a substantial interrater agreement. The rest of the tweets were single-coded according to the codebook. RESULTS: We observed a significant peak in the discussion of VLNC on Twitter within 4 days of the FDA's announcement of the proposed rule on June 21, 2022. The proportion of tweets with a negative attitude toward VLNC was significantly lower than those with a positive attitude, 24.5% (801/3270) versus 37.09% (1213/3270) with P<.001 from the 2-proportion z test. Among tweets with a positive attitude, the topic "Reduce cigarette consumption or help smoking cessation" was dominant (1097/1213, 90.44%). Among tweets with a negative attitude, the topic "VLNC leads to more smoking" was the most popular topic (227/801, 28.34%), followed by "Similar toxicity of VLNC as a regular cigarette" (223/801, 27.84%), and "VLNC is not a good method for quitting smoking" (211/801, 26.34%). CONCLUSIONS: There is a more positive attitude toward VLNC than a negative attitude on Twitter, resulting from different opinions about VLNC. Discussions around VLNC mainly focused on whether VLNC could help people quit smoking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".