WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 11: Packaging and Labelling of Tobacco Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) requires member countries to implement measures aimed at reducing the demand for tobacco products. FCTC article 11 describes the important forms of health communication and packaging regulations. And this article recommends on large pictorial health warnings and encourages more effective forms of disclosure on constituents and emissions. Furthermore, article 11 recognizes the importance of the package as a promotional vehicle for tobacco companies and requires the removal of potentially misleading packaging information, including the terms "light" and "mild." The Conference of the Parties (COP) adopted guidelines for implementation of article 11 on "Packaging and labelling of Tobacco Products". Some countries, such as Canada, the U.S.A., Australia, EU countries etc. positively promoted tobacco control by implementing countermeasures such as the graphic health warning labels and plain packages. These countermeasures showed the significant effects of decreasing smoking rate and preventing smoking initiation in young people. Furthermore, these warning labels were effective for the literally challenged. However, the Japanese government has not implemented these countermeasures, and only limited texts are shown on Japanese tobacco packaging. Therefore, Japan should emulate approaches taken by other countries, and promote the tobacco control policy in accordance with FCTC.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".