Guiding Principles for the Development of Tobacco Product Research and Testing Capacity and Proposed Protocols for the Initiation of Tobacco Product Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 2003, the WHO Director-General formalized the Scientific Advisory Committee on Tobacco Product Regulation (SACTob) by changing its status to that of a study group. Following the status change, the SACTob became the "WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation" (TobReg). It is composed of national and international scientific experts on product regulation, tobacco dependence treatment, and laboratory analysis of tobacco ingredients and emissions. Its work is based on cutting edge research on tobacco product issues. It conducts research in order to fill regulatory gaps in tobacco control. As a formalized entity of WHO, TobReg reports to the Executive Board through the Director-General in order to draw the Member States' attention to WHO's efforts in tobacco product regulation. This recommendation was approved and adopted by TobReg during its first meeting on 26 to 28 October 2004 in Montebello, Canada.
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 | 0.489 | 0.262 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
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".