Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 1960's the question of influencing people's smoking habits was treated several times in the Norwegian Parliament. Important documents for the justification of a more restrictive policy with respect to the marketing of tobacco products "Påvirkning av røykeadferd", The Norwegian Cancer Society 1967, where the proposal to build an administration that would take care of the work on smoking and health was raised. Report to the Storting nr. 62, 1968-1969, that proposed a ban on cigarette advertising, and Recommandation of the Social Commitee nr. 143, 1969-1970. The National Council on Tobacco and Health was created in 1971, and the same year came "Innstilling til lov om restriktive tiltak ved omsetning av tobakksvarer" (The Tobacco Act), enacted as law nr. 14 og March 9th 1973 and implemented from July 1st 1975. On behalf of the National Council on Tobacco and Health Statistics Norway has since 1973 conducted smoking habits surveys as an addition to the Labour Force Surveys every 4th quarter. In 1974 and in 1975 the Smoking habits survey was conducted each quarter of the year. The purpose was to obtain information on the status and changes in Norwegian smoking habits, mainly as research material for the National Council on Tobacco and Health. After 1992, questions on smoking habits have largely been asked in connection with Statistics Norway's Omnibus Surveys.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".