MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Referee report. For: Visualizing data: Trends in smoking tobacco prices and taxes in India [version 1; referees: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

2019· article· en· W4416490143 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pranay Lal

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty of 1000 Research Ltd · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Research UKInternational Development Research CentreBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsTobacco industryTobacco controlGovernment (linguistics)Consumption (sociology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background : Tobacco smoking remains a leading risk factor for disease burden globally. In India alone, about 1 million deaths are caused annually by smoking. Although increasing tobacco prices has consistently been found to be the most effective intervention to reduce tobacco use, the documentation of prices and taxes across time and space has not been an essential component of tobacco control surveillance in most jurisdictions. This study aimed to examine, using graphical methods, trends in smoking tobacco taxes and prices in India at national and state-level. Methods : We used retail prices, price indices, and unit values (household expenditures on a commodity divided by the quantity purchased) collected and reported by government agencies. For bidis and cigarettes, we examined current and real (inflation-adjusted) prices, affordability (cost in terms of income), and key tax changes at both national and state-level. Results : We show that real prices of bidis and cigarettes were relatively flat (even decreasing in the case of bidis) between 2000 and 2007, and clearly increasing from 2010. When rising income is taken into account, however, both cigarettes and bidis have become more affordable since 2000. We found that some but not all tax changes were accompanied by price changes and in particular, that tax decreases did not result in price decreases. Conclusion : It is feasible to evaluate tax and price policies at national and regional level using routinely collected data.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.145
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7010.380

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueFaculty of 1000 Research LtdSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207