Bibliographic record
Abstract
When I began working at Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in 2000, I was given a very broad mandate: do everything you can to support this tobacco treaty.The ASH Board had the foresight to recognize and understand the global significance of what would become the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the FCTC, and decided to fully stand behind the development of the first global health treaty.At that time, tobacco was advertised everywhere, no country had comprehensive smoke-free policies, not a single country had pictorial health warnings, and plain packaging was barely a consideration.Many thought the concept of smoke-free bars and restaurants was going too far.The FCTC was a game-changer in global health: it provided a clear path for countries on what to do to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use.ASH strengthened the participation of civil society in the tobacco treaty process by supporting the Framework Convention Alliance (FCA) 1 , now the Global Alliance for Tobacco Control (GATC) 2 , an alliance of non-governmental organizations that was a powerful voice and had a tremendous impact on the FCTC process.ASH served as the secretariat of the FCA for seventeen years, and I had the privilege to serve as its first director 3 .Through the years, the FCA was able to form a coalition of more than 500 public health, human rights, consumer rights, women's and children's rights organizations and environmental activists from over 100 countries, rallying to support the development of the strongest, evidence-based, and most effective FCTC 3 .'I had the privilege to work closely with the FCA through the development of the FCTC and to witness firsthand the expertise they bring to the process of negotiating and adopting complex policy.The importance of having non-government and government agencies work together cannot be underestimated, and FCA understands very well how to influence governments to create the best possible policies', said Tábare Vázquez, President of Uruguay (2005-2010) 4 .Working with a coalition of supportive countries, including India, Thailand, Canada, New Zealand, the island nations of the Pacific and Caribbean, and the entire continent of Africa, the FCA was able to thwart the desires of tobacco producing governments that sought a weak and non-binding treaty during the FCTC negotiations.In just a few years, from the beginning of the treaty negotiations to its adoption in 2003, the FCA grew tremendously in size and influence and had a very significant impact not only on the final text of the FCTC but also its rapid entry into force and later development of Guidelines and the Illicit Trade Protocol 3 .FCA members participated in all negotiating sessions of the FCTC, working collaboratively with governments, the WHO, and other UN entities.FCA provided educational materials, hosted delegates' briefings, wrote a daily newsletter during
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.028 |
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".